Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 27

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 02:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Newcastle-under-Lyme[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, poorly-formatted list of largely non-notable local politicians. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Bishop's Stortford[edit]

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

Non-notable ceremonial head of a town council. AusLondonder (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Jowitt[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elito Circa[edit]

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

This article is under heavy scrutiny at its Talk page for suspected sock puppetry, large amounts of (suspected) copyright infringements, dubious claims, uncited material, and I suspect it's also self-promotion. See the discussion at the Talk page for more info. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 23:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Talk:Elito Circa, User talk:Artsaqua. Reason: Notifying talk page and original author (since indefinitely blocked since it was sockpuppet). ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 00:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:TNT. The article is an autobiography created by a blocked sock with the same name as the artist's nom de plume, heavily edited by multiple sockpuppets and single purpose accounts and IPs from the Philipines. Undisclosed paid editing may also factor in as the article was riddled with peacockery, copyright violations and exaggerated claims. I've done quite a bit of clean up, as there might be a possibility of notability, but it is hard to sift thru the self-published and primary sourcing and I believe it would be best to delete it. Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is possible, but not definite and the current refs aren't reliable enough to prove it. Given the issues with the article I agree that it needs to be WP:TNTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Howell (footballer, born 1895)[edit]

Harry Howell (footballer, born 1895) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With the demise of NFOOTY, football players need to meet GNG. I was not able to locate any significant coverage of Howell on a search (even with +1895 to narrow down the results). De-PROD'd by an IP with the edit summary "should have coverage", but of course no sources have been added or even credibly asserted to exist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters. Clear consensus for no standalone, WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Wenderoth[edit]

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

Prod and notability tag removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS - all we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he played for FC 1880 Frankfurt.
No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters. Clear consensus for no standalone, WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Stockhausen[edit]

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

Prod and notability tag removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE - all we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he played for FC 1880 Frankfurt.
No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Newland[edit]

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

Delete for lack of notability, unsourced claims. Single source article has needed more information for a long time, but that does not appear to be forthcoming. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment was a WP:BEFORE done on this, did you think about cleaning up the article yourself before nominating it as per WP:GDBN, I mean from what I can see, there probably will be enough for WP:GNG, not only for his time playing, but also from going on to forming a goalkeeping school and his own business. It probably just needs sorting through the fluff pieces and finding the meat but putting articles up for deletion isn't the way to get them fixed. Few references found with a quick search: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] — NZFC(talk)(cont) 22:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As NZFC has shown, WP:BEFORE not done, bad evil nom. Govvy (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is quite clearly notable, as NZFC's quick search shows. Also reminding that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and sentences such as Single source article has needed more information for a long time, but that does not appear to be forthcoming. shouldn't appear in a deletion rationale. --SuperJew (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A clearly notable subject. Seasider53 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per sources found by NZFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I'm not convinced by the sources found. The source from Slate.com is a trivial mention. The source from Greensonscreen.co.uk is a WP:SELFPUBLISH according its about section ("It is run by one person as a hobby [[..]]"). The nwcfl.com source is a primary source. The Winsford United F C Players books description says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online.". Of the Liverpool Echo articles, two of them only mention his football career briefly, the one with his daughter getting a severe allergic reaction and the one is about his refusal to pay council tax. The third one is about him and his Just4keeprs brand and is probably the best source. If better sources are found, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an actual analysis of the sources shows that we do not have enough to jutify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources provided above, meets GNG. GiantSnowman 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources provided above, easily meets GNG. We need BEFORE to be performed instead of wasting everyone’s time. A thorough search, including newspaper archives, should be performed before nominating notable subjects for deletion. Jacona (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alvaldi. BilledMammal (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GNG, terrible BEFORE attempt.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Beaumont[edit]

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

Delete non-notable. Article has only one source, which has been the case for more than a decade. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable even though it (was) lacking in citations. I don't understand that being the rationale for deletion. Seasider53 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a bit closer then the Frank Bradshaw one but he definitely passes WT:FOOTY and can almost certainly pass GNG if not already. Article needs improving not deleting. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - he played for three Football League clubs and managed two more, all these clubs have comprehensive "Who's Who" books available with biographies of former players/managers (Lincoln City, Watford, PNE, Aberdare, Blackpool book is already referenced in the article). I think it is very likely that there is more information out there and this article could be extended significantly by someone with access to these books. BigDom (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources provided above, meets GNG. GiantSnowman 21:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. Govvy (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Meets GNG per sources above and has played for multiple football league clubs. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Catfurball (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW – Reliable sources have been located and added rather quickly after nomination. WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been followed, and any admin should know that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Bradshaw[edit]

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

Delete for lack of notability, few sources. Article has needed sources for over a decade. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to references added by Alvaldi they pass WP:GNG. I feel deletion shouldn't be used as a way to improve articles.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 22:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep What kind of nomination is this? This is turning into a joke now. An admin failing to perform any kind of WP:BEFORE should be super WP:TROUT'ed. Govvy (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this what we're going to see now that SNGs have been abandoned, biographies for England international footballers with hundreds of Football League appearances being nominated for deletion? I genuinely wonder what will actually be left of this encyclopaedia in a few years time. Subject is obviously notable and meets the GNG, as is now clearly demonstrated by Alvaldi's expansion of the article. Sigh. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is quite clearly notable, and it indeed seems the nominater did not perform a basic WP:BEFORE. Also reminding that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and sentences such as Article has needed sources for over a decade. shouldn't appear in a deletion rationale. --SuperJew (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article now clearly demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Lack of notability?? He has over 100 apps for Arsenal and has played internationally. GNG and WT:FOOTY both passed easily. I am very surprised to see this coming from a admin with 16 years of experience. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the most ridiculous nomination I have ever seen. A full England international has a "lack of notability"? Seriously? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A clearly notable subject. Seasider53 (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One might be inclined to deduce that there was some campaign to seriously reduce the number of football related articles. I hope not. Obviously notable.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel the subject passes WP:GNG with the sources now added to the article. While a cap for England and over 100 of Football League appearances do not in any way mean that a person is automatically notable, they can indicate a higher chance of the person being so. And that seems to be the case here as Bradshaw is continuingly referenced in the sources as one of the best full-backs in the country during his time. Alvaldi (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hadley[edit]

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

Delete for lack of notability, almost no sources. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have only done a quick historic news search but found a number of references to support some of the article's prose, which I have just added. Despite only doing a quick search, some mentions such as this and this are more significant. Furthermore, this is someone who spent quite a number of years at a high profile club and played internationally, as well as managed in his later career. I'll try and find some more when I get a chance but what I have found suggests to me we can determine notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just from what Bungle has added to the article and linked here, they pass WP:GNG. Then there is going to be more article out there, deletion shouldn't be used as a way to improve articles.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 22:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is quite clearly notable, and it indeed seems the nominater did not perform a basic WP:BEFORE. Also reminding that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and sentences such as Article has needed sources for over a decade. shouldn't appear in a deletion rationale. --SuperJew (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject. Seasider53 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added a few of more sources that cover his career in detail [8][9][10]. I feel that the subject passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. The original nomination was invalid and rather malicious, as the subject played football at the top club and international teams level. There are now ample references to negate ostensible reasons for nomination. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources provided above, meets GNG. GiantSnowman 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Clearly meets WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per other sources mentioned by previous editors. Chetsford (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per sources found by Alvaldi. However, I strongly disagree with statements like seems the nominater did not perform a basic WP:BEFORE and The original nomination was invalid and rather malicious. It was an appropriate nomination, and there is no evidence that the requirements of WP:BEFORE were not met. The bigger issue is that these articles were created without demonstrating notability. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Playing football at international level for a top nation will always make the subject notable. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep clearly passes GNG, terrible BEFORE attempt by nominator.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Overwhelming community consensus is that members of a parliament are accorded presumed notability, per WP:NPOL. Regards, (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Jayalakshmi[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Stub has little information, scant sourcing, and no evidence of encyclopedic notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Baxter (footballer, born 1904)[edit]

Jimmy Baxter (footballer, born 1904) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has had no sources for over 12 years. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no evidence such a person ever existed. Google Books has gone wonky for me, but news and scholar return nothing and proper Google is just mirrors. The chance that this guy either is a hoax or mentioned only once in some old book somewhere increases the more mirrors I have to sift through. Toss it, in my opinion.
    Keep per sources supplied by later !voters. casualdejekyll 20:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced article about non-notable individual who might never have existed. Deletion is long overdue. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, apparently not a hoax. Still not notable. My delete vote stands. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I wasn't able to find anything. This could very well be a hoax. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Casualdejekyll, Doczilla, and Scorpions13256:, foxestalk appears to show him in the 1925-26 squad and I'm fairly certain that a James Baxter at 11v11 is the same person so there's a good chance that this is not a hoax but a relatively unknown footballer. If so, he would pass WT:FOOTY as Leicester were playing in the top division at the time. I will have a look to see if searches for James Baxter in the 1920s reveal any more. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this confirms what the article says. It also shows that he was commonly known as James Baxter not Jimmy, which would explain why it was difficult to find sources for him under that name. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @REDMAN 2019 If James Baxter is the primary name, can the article be moved after the AfD? (I'm afraid moving it during the AfD might mess it up.) casualdejekyll 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Casualdejekyll:, if James Baxter proves to be the WP:COMMONNAME, moving the page after the AFD concluded wouldn't be a problem. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have struck my comments for now, but I don't think any of the sources count toward WP:GNG. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GNG is not met as no examples of WP:SIGCOV have been provided, and WP:NFOOTY no longer exists.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.scottishjuniorfa.com/scottish-junior-cup/history-of-junior-cup/previous-finals/1920-1949/ No Yes No Mentioned in a list of players ✘ No
https://www.11v11.com/players/james-baxter-43519/ Yes ? No Statistics only database ✘ No
https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/jimmy-baxter_2/ Yes ? No Statistics only database ✘ No
http://www.bufc.drfox.org.uk/rollcall.html#JBaxter Yes ? No Statistics only database ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
BilledMammal (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one should go towards GNG. I also found another one from 1929 behind a paywall at the British Newspaper Archive that does cover his career up to that point but, like his career, is not the longest. Alvaldi (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources provided above, meets GNG. GiantSnowman 21:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still undecided. Please keep me updated. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As he played in the English First Division, and for Parkhead when they were a highly successful and well supported club, I would expect there to be more coverage of him, but I suspect it will mostly be in book/newspaper form rather than online. At the moment I think this is very much a borderline case unless more sources can be located. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TWL likely has something.. somebody'll have to check that casualdejekyll 13:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources supplied by Alvaldi establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources provided by Alvaldi. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am satisfied with the sources provided. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a disruptive nomination. Nominator knows perfectly well about WP:NEXIST and that the answer for a sourcing problem is a reference template, NOT an AfD! He also know that WP does not have deadlines but submitted this AfD anyway. The subject meets the WP:GNG per abundance of WP:SIGCOV. WP:SNOW clearly applies to this nomination. gidonb (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, it is a weak keep at best right now IMHO. There isn't abundance of SIGCOV on the subject, there is one decent source and one iffy. And I'm writing this as the one who actually went out of his way to find those sources. I don't know if the nominator performed a proper WP:BEFORE but that wouldn't have turned up anything even if he did as a Google search wouldn't have turned up those sources. So while I agree with you that the nominator could have done a much better job with the nomination, the subject is still of questionable notability. Alvaldi (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your work on sourcing this article is much appreciated! And absolutely no WP:BLP concern here! gidonb (talk)
  • This is not a disruptive nomination. In fact, if it wasn't for @REDMAN 2019, this likely would have closed as Delete. casualdejekyll 21:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources provided are sufficient to establish notability. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AltSignals[edit]

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

Delete non-notable promo stub with scant sourcing. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona International Public Policy Hub[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable promotion stub with almost no sources. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No !vote yet from me, but it's worth making a check for sources in Spanish, since this is a location in Spain casualdejekyll 20:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From my search, doesn't even pass WP:GNG, let alone the much stricter WP:NORG. I checked through two pages of google results as well as a cursory check of books and news and scholar, and found one interview with it's founder, but nothing else that could be used as a source or count towards notability. casualdejekyll 20:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not gonna make a comment on its notability, but the standard for notability is WP:GNG, and other standards can be used if a topic doesn't meet that standard. You should never say that while something meets GNG it doesn't meet another one (like WP:NBIO or whatever), so its not notable. I know thats what people try to do all the time, but its wrong. From WP:NBIO: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." TimeEngineer (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Vibrations. ✗plicit 23:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Owens[edit]

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

Non-notable The Temptations member that fails WP:SINGER, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anıl Abanoz[edit]

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

According to Soccerway, this semi-pro would have failed the now deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL guideline with no WP:FPL games. Turkish Wikipedia also has him down for zero professional games. Searching in Google News gives only passing mentions in squad lists. A Turkish source search only came back with one article in Fanatik about failing a drugs test. Everything else was a stats database or tiny transfer announcement. ProQuest had nothing. Only the doping article is even close to WP:SIGCOV and so this clearly falls short of the requirement for sources (plural) showing in-depth coverage for GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. All keep rationales seem to be based in policy, with consensus having moved more towards keep based on the edits/sources by one editor. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa Bitar[edit]

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

It's depressing when a creating editor moves a Draft to mainspace when not ready. Because it's a disputed draftification it has to come to AfD, even if the realistic outcome is to draftify. If I draftified it that would be move warring and help no-one. Bitar's claim to notability is the Abu Al-Qasem Al-Shabi Prize, which is only verified in a primary source. It appears to be a notable prize. Unless improved during the AfD I suggest the outcome be to draftify since deletion itself appears inappropriate. I may, of course, be mistaken about the Abu Al-Qasem Al-Shabi Prize and its signficance. If I am please educate us all by opting to delete. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Medicine, and Syria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I had worked on this article when it was a draft, and found mentions that indicated some WP:BASIC and possible WP:AUTHOR notability, and just added a few more sources from the WP Library that add further support for WP:BASIC notability as an author, including another award and discussion in a scholarly journal. There are additional mentions available on ProQuest that help me lean towards a weak keep instead of draftify, including mention of her participation in the 2009 Emirates Literary Festival (e.g. "Book Lovers Snap up Tickets of Emirates Literary Festival" (McClatchy, 2009)), a quote from her from the Syria Times reprinted in the Middle East News Online article "Hopes for the new millennium" (2001), and an abstract available for a 2009 Gulf News article "Writing for women more than a luxury", about "a discussion with female authors Mansoura Ez Eldin, Haifa Bitar and Rajaa Al Sanea on whether literary works produced by Arab women share distinctive characteristics and features." Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC) - !vote updated, per comment below Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Abu Al-Qasem Al-Shabi Prize is notable though the sourcing overall seems a bit of a stretch. I agree with Beccanyr’s “weak keep” here. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything in the sources cited which would establish GNG notability. And I find it problematic to attribute such eminence to a literary prize — which in itself isn't notable enough to have an article (that I can find, at least) — as to somehow satisfy NAUTHOR notability, when NAUTHOR doesn't actually list literary awards as a criterion. I guess I could at a push also live with draftifying, but all I can say in that case is, if this comes up for AfC review I will not be accepting it as it currently stands. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing I am only basing any suggestion in the nomination that the prize is notable on the fact that other RS sources report it being presented to another author by a senior national government person. This it has the appearance of being a notable prize, but reality may differ.
    In its current state I would also decline this as a draft, but my hope in the nomination suggestion of drafification was that it would be improved better there rather than under the deadline pressure of AfD 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Timtrent — sorry if I gave the impression I was taking a swipe at you (or anyone else) with my comments RE the prize; that was certainly not my intention. I just felt that basing this person's notability on an award of unproven notability, while NAUTHOR is silent on awards to begin with, was a bridge too far. As for my !vote, I realise it may seem harsh, but IMO the creating editor has, by moving this to the main space when it wasn't ready, made it (entirely gratuitously) fair game. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing I never took it as a swipe. What I have tried to do is to make an even handed nomination based on all I knew of the prize, admittedly not much! I could not draftify it because doing so again would be move warring, so it is right that the wider community decides at AfD 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing, I refer to WP:BASIC in my !vote and refer to the awards because I view awards as a form of secondary commentary about the subject, that while not always in-depth, may not be trivial, and therefore can fit within the WP:BASIC allowance for how multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I am more concerned about the limited sources I have found about the award than the lack of a specific Wikipedia article - we do appear to have an article about the poet for whom the award is named, which also suggests we may need to use multiple alternative spellings and translations from non-English sources to find further information about his legacy, including the award, which could then help support WP:ANYBIO#1 and the significant critical attention prong of WP:AUTHOR#4(c). From my view, based on what we currently have available, the combination of sources helps support her WP:BASIC notability, including the discussion of her work in two International Journal of Middle East Studies articles that were added during this AfD discussion, as well as a review in Banipal that was already in the article, along with mentions, e.g. in The New Yorker in 2009 describing her as "the outspoken Syrian novelist Haifa Bitar" and her being described as one of the "Prominent Arabic writers present at the Emirates Airline International Festival" by Gulf News in 2009. Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added to the article, some stylistic/formatting edits, some additional information about the books, most relevant for this AfD, I've found multiple pieces of commentary on her work via Google Books, including one in depth discussion about how she is often criticized for discussing the regionally taboo topics of women's sexuality. Everything I added was from English language sources, despite her writing mostly appearing to be in Arabic, so she's having influence far from home. The article wasn't in good shape, I expected to ~vote drafify when first saw this one, but with the new edits, I think it is now in sufficiently good shape to remain up, notwithstanding that further refinements would be good and I'm sure there's more information out there, especially for anyone who can search in Arabic. CT55555 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article looks in fine shape now, thanks to CT55555. pburka (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pburka. Fade258 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I updated my !vote to remove "weak" after expanding the article with information from sources added by CT55555 and another source from GScholar that analyzes several of her works. Per WP:AUTHOR#4, there appears to be significant critical attention of her works based on these sources and the awards, and sources identified in this discussion can be added to further support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR. While I am not sure if I am "allowed" to self close, I have made an error in nominating this article and am choosing a WP:IAR close (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American School of Bombay[edit]

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

Secondary (etc) schools no longer get a free pass, and must pass WP:NCORP. This one is substantially different from the draft previously mandated by the first deletion discussion, but has not demonstrated that it passes our notability criteria. One reference is deployed in such a manner as to suggest that it verifies that which it does not. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The deletion admin of the previous AFD and I worked together to add sourcing and I moved it based on the discussion here User_talk:Star_Mississippi#American_Embassy_School. I'm not quite clear on how GNG is not being met by the sources I added. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhisperToMe It is perfectly possible that I am mistaken. I simply do not see the notability. If sufficient opinions are offered to keep and none to delete in the next reasonable time I will happily withdraw. I am not, however, content with the reference that in my view fails verification for two out of its three deployments. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reply! I went and checked the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Decisions_based_on_verifiable_evidence which explains how an article about an organization passes or fails the General Notability Gudeline.
        • 1. The Kably article was written by a Times News Network staff member (independent) and discusses the school in detail. I see no evidence the school sponsored it.
        • 2. The Chhapia article was also written by a TNN staff member and also discusses the school in detail. I see no evidence the school sponsored it.
        • However Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Times of India does say this about the TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government." However I felt that TOI should still count towards notability since there doesn't seem to be much political controversy about the school itself, and I feel TOI's coverage did not seem outrageous.
      • WhisperToMe (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my opinion, as WhisperToMe alluded to above, that their edits addressed the WP:ORG-ish (school criteria are confusing) concerns as well as G4, but I have no doubt Timtrent has seen more schools than I have in a long AfC tenture. I broke up the section linked, you can find this article discussed at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Mumbai. I don't have time to fully search on and add more sources now, so neutral and watching. Star Mississippi 19:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi I see g4 as addressed completely. I hope I said so properly in the nomination. I would like to see what those not so far involved in the article have to say. Long experience can also lead to errors by the long experienced reviewer, you know. Time served is never an arbiter of good vs poor decisions
    @WhisperToMe I do see that the reference you describe discussed the school in depth. Did I miss where it discussed the points I flagged with {{fv}}? I am always happy to put my mistakes right. I dont think of it as a sponsored source at all. I just see it as not verifying that which it has been deployed to verify. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR I misread one of the references. My fault. One can make a mistake, and I have. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Honiton[edit]

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

List of ceremonial mayors of a town - Fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AusLondonder (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Lists, and England. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT and statcruft that isn’t even formatted correctly. Dronebogus (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly formatted, barely even trivial list. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Most of the entries are non notable. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost trivial and fails WP:NLIST. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I removed the PROD from the list article it was on the basis of a quick scan through what looked like similar deletion discussions, some of which had been closed as keep. However, on more in-depth investigation including a re-reading and reconsideration of the relevant Ps and Gs (especially WP:NLIST) I found that most of the lists that were kept could be distinguished in various ways from this one. In addition there appear to be far fewer notable people among the mayors of Honiton than I expected to find - Juanita Maxwell Phillips being the clear exception.
I do wish that people would refrain from citing reasons for deletion such as poor formatting, which for as long as I've been here has never been a reason for the deletion of anything. I also cannot see the relevance of WP:INDISCRIMINATE to a clearly defined list of people who have held a very specific post. And the examples in WP:LISTCRUFT, which were doubtlessly most carefully selected to be representative of the type of list the essay was intended to describe are so very different from the type of list we have here that that essay can have very little relevance to this and similar AfDs.
Nonetheless, even though almost all of the entries have reasonable (if incomplete) references to confirm their accuracy, this has to be a delete. Not because of formatting, or because it's indiscriminate or because it's crufty, but because of NLIST. Mayor of Honiton is not itself a notable topic and there are insufficient notable holders of the post to raise a list of them over the notability bar. The few notable mayors should be mentioned in the parent article, Honiton.  —SMALLJIM  11:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with much of what you've said. Just to clarify my reason for citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE is that this is effectively data without encyclopedic value. "Data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." AusLondonder (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Issaquah School District. ✗plicit 00:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Lake Middle School[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill middle school with no evidence of anything to make it notable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Walten Files[edit]

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

completely and utterly non notable youtube series, no coverage anywhere to be found. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sources being used in the article are valid reliable sources, and searches bring up a few brief mentions, but nothing substantial enough to pass the WP:GNG. A previous article on the series was deleted due to notability concerns about nine months ago, and it does not appear to have gained any notability since then. Rorshacma (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I’m a fan of the series, but I didn’t find any better sourcing to establish notability. --Finngall talk 04:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging this page that the author has moved it to draftspace and then to projectspace, both causing an error message with the AFD template, and multiline redirect in mainspace that I can't overwrite with a page move, so if a Page MOver or Sysop is around, just wanted to see if you could fix this. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 07:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when someone can do better. Absolutely none of the references here represent third party reliable source coverage about the web series in media, which is what's required to show notability — instead, it's sourced entirely to Twitter, TVTropes, IMDb and Know Your Meme, which are not notability builders. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 17:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Øystein Steiro[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS, only won a bit more than 1,000 dollars and was ranked around place 1,000. Does not have WP:SIGCOV. There is a Øystein Steiro Sr., who has coverage in Norwegian media and also writes, but that is someone else. Mvqr (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Norway. Mvqr (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Norwegian newspaper search yields plenty of hits but none of them seem to be relevant to this tennis player. He was born in 1992 so clearly the detailed pieces dated Aug 1992 and dated June 1997 relate to a different person of the same name. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV for the tennis player. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NTENNIS as he has only played a handful of ITF and Challenger tournaments and hasn't won any title. Fails WP:GNG per nom and Spiderone. I note that the article was only created last week and if the original article creator or anybody else has reliable sources then they should still be added to the article. Bonoahx (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Noting that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Azarova (academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Valentina Azarova (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hi all - I am the subject of this article. It was clearly written by someone who doesn't know my profile or work and who may have merely followed a few of the pieces during the UoT situation, which has now ended. I would be delighted had this person done proper research about me, so that wikipedia users have access to accurate information and I am not misrepresented. But this is not the case. I would be willing to put such a page together myself, but this page needs to be removed. It is, for its omissions and style. quite defamatory and most of all highly inaccurate and irremediable. Valentina azarova (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expect others will comment about the deletion, but if you can draw attention to anything inaccurate, I would quickly edit to address that. CT55555 (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2022 (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/2022 April 27. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E - the coverage I have found appears to show 1) Azarova is covered in the context of single event, 2) she otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual and this biography gives undue weight to the event and appears to conflict with a neutral point of view, and 3) it seems unclear based on the limited amount of reporting on the university actions how significant the event is, but clear that her role was not substantial nor well-documented. Even if there is borderline significance of the event, the available sources appear to be so focused on the university and others that the purpose of WP:BLP policy, as well as WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTWHOSWHO, seems best served by deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The proportion of Ms. Azarova's involvement in this newsevent is actually fairly small compared to the participation of the judge and the university administrators and others who have kept it in the news for several years. If there was to be an article, it should focus on the controversy, not on her and without the controversy being given undue weight, we're not left with much for an article.--Jahaza (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Has identity of User:Valentina azarova been verified by WP:OTRS or similar? While I think there is marginal notability here, I don't think it is so much as to override the wish of the subject. (There are also surely plenty of folks that would be happy to improve this page, although of course that always requires sourcing.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The short answer to your first question is yes. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, after followup to my question by Primefac. I !voted weak keep in the first AfD, as I think that the coverage around the UT case is enough for an article. (I also did not notice the username of the nominator, for which I apologize to her.) However, at least the spirit of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is that a page for a marginally notable person may be deleted on their request. I don't think that the subject is so notable (at least at this time) that a page is essential for the project, hence my switch. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also voted to keep before, I considered her notable, but I am persuaded by the arguments above about BLP1E and the desire of the subject. CT55555 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly notable (seems borderline), but WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 00:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suryamal Mishran Shikhar Award[edit]

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

While Suryamal Misran is notable, there's no evidence this prize is. Article creator is not inclined to fix the problems in draft space, so we are here. References are not in depth and simply seem to verify a recipient and the award's existence. A merger to Mishran would also be fine Star Mississippi 01:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The award is notable. It is one of the top awards in Rajasthan literature conferred by Rajasthani Bhasha Sahitya and Sanskriti Akademi which is the official government body for Rajasthani language by state of Rajasthan. Other than Sahitya Akademi awards for Rajasthani which is Union government body, this is the only other government recognized body.
Since its a Rajasthani language award, its hard to find sources in this language other than news articles when it is conferred on someone.
The official website is "सूर्यमल्ल मीसण शिखर पुरस्कार though its not properly maintained. Finally, it would be better to add it as a section to Suryamal Misran article for now, better sources might be avaialble in future. Krayon95 (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - An article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, and this one does not. The read cannot be expected to check all of the references. The article has been reference-bombed, which makes it difficult for a reviewer to check all of the references, but the reviewer should not be expected to check all of the references. (The originator may identify between three and five sources to check, but should also clarify in the article why the award is notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this article originally but translated it from Hindi Wikipedia. Since then, more than 25 sources have been added also referencing the awards for the recipient list. This award was started in 1985 and has been covered in books and news sources:
  1. Dutt, K. C. (1999). Who's who of Indian Writers: 1999 : In 2 Vol. Vol. 1 A-M. Sahitya Akademi. p. 1168. ISBN 978-81-260-0873-5.
  2. Rājasthāna vārshikī (in Hindi). Pañcagaṅgā Prakāśana. 1988. p. 13.
  3. Aṇuvrata (in Hindi). Bālacandra Jaina. 2006. p. 38.
  4. Hindī sāhityakāra sandarbha kośa (in Hindi). Hindī Sāhitya Niketana. 1997. p. 136. ISBN 978-81-85139-29-6.
  5. Kanhaiyālāla Seṭhiyā By Kanhaiyālāla Seṭhiyā, Rādhādevī Bhāloṭiyā, Kanhaiyālāla Ojhā · 1989
These are standard books and also prove the early coverage of the award since its beginning. Again, the award is notable and is one of the top-one for Rajasthani language given by Rajasthan Governement official body. Krayon95 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Also the sources are mostly in non english languages, there are enough reliable sources provided on the page, although a few are blogs and a couple of exam preparation books which I removed for being not reliable, the rest look pretty good. Since the award is given by the government, government websites are reliable for this, which is what are provided in it. On a cursory glance hindi sources looks good and reliable for such a topic. Even then if notability issue is raised then it can even be merged with Suryamal Misran. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V. John Krehbiel[edit]

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

Krehbiel was a non-notable campaign contributor who was given an ambassadorship as an award. Ambassaros are not default notable, and our sourcing on him is only name dropping and primary source reports on a meeting he had. This is not the stuff notability is made of. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here to demonstrate notability. I can find sources to verify existence but not significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Among, many things, he was the chairman of the California GOP, his alleged purchase of the ambassadorship got a lot of attention, he did quite a bit more than just serve as an "ambassaro". Here's one piece of WP:SIGCOV. Meets WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    comment. It seems to me I found sources more easily after leaving out the ambassadorship to Finland. He's probably better known for his many years of activism in the California GOP. Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com are so full of sources, especially in the early 1960s time period. It also confuses things that he's sometimes referred to as Victor, sometimes as John, and other times as V. John.Jacona (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Thanks to Jacona for the newspaper articles they added to the article. Article clearly meets WP:BASIC. Atchom (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kalemba[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim is that he's chief executive officer of a city council, which is not an "inherently" notable role under NPOL #2 -- but the footnotes are a deadlinked primary source and a single hit of deadlinked media coverage in the context of visiting his city's American sister city, which means one isn't support for notability at all and the other isn't enough to vault him over the bar all by itself. The article has also existed for a full decade without ever having any other sourcing added to bolster his notability.
To be fair, a Google search for other sources brings up hits for a person of the same name who is now Malawi's Commissioner for Disaster and Management Affairs, but they're glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in coverage of disasters rather than substantive coverage about him, and they don't actually verify whether he's the same person as this or a different person who merely happens to have the same name. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived African media than I've got can find enough improved coverage to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing and substance improvement. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Shawa[edit]

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

Single-sourced article about a civil servant. Principal secretary of a government ministry is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL: it's a bureaucratic role, not a cabinet position, so it isn't "inherently" notable in the absence of a clear WP:GNG pass on the sourcing, but there's only one footnote here and the article has existed for a decade (thus suggesting that she may possibly not even be the "current" holder of the stated role anymore) without ever having any other sources added. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I did some online searching and found content about her. I added it in. She seems notable in Malawi, here's a link to just the Nyasa Times articles about her https://www.nyasatimes.com/tag/mary-shawa/ CT55555 (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In an article in The Economist 2016 about murders of people with albinism, she is mentioned: "Dr Mary Shawa of the Ministry of Gender, Disability and Social Welfare in Malawi denies that there is a market and insists that the murderers are opportunists acting on rumours of payments. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is indeed an organised trade"; there is slightly more of a focus on her in AlJazeera 2017, including, "She rattles off the details of cases that have been solved and cites “ministerial research” to suggest that there is no market for the bones." When she was "responsible for HIV and nutrition in the president's office", the BBC in 2008 covered the government decision to replace financial support for Malawian civil servants with HIV with "cooking oil, some eggs", and there is a partially-available article from The Chronicle in AllAfrica (2005) that includes her announcing a law criminalizing the transmission of HIV that "will make each and every individual personally responsible". VOA in 2014 quotes her on domestic violence: "The most common violence with the women perpetrate against men is denying their conjugal rights. It is the highly reported violence and that particular violence is what results in women being battered being hacked and so forth". Beccaynr (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, yeah, that's better. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AppMaster.io[edit]

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

Recently declined AfC submission; not shown to meet notability guidelines; promotional tone Certes (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. Certes (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. There's quite a bit of disruption here. @Certes:, note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppMaster (2nd nomination) is open on the article prior to the move/draft/redirect disruption. Pikavoom Talk 13:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops; I didn't spot that. Please feel free to give my AfD a speedy procedural close as "already open". Certes (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Certes: missing that was totally understandable. It also involved a move to User:AppMaster that got speedied per U2 since the user doesn't exist. I'll just leave this open until an admin attends to the disruption here by multiple users, I suspect this isn't the last disruption here. Pikavoom Talk 14:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article I nominated is now at Draft:AppMaster.io, not to be confused with the similar article at AppMaster. Certes (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Certes, I just managed to move it back. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, so much of disruption and promotion, another similar article is also at AfD. Just delete and salt. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear promotion. Way too soon to be notable; might just be one kid and his web site? W Nowicki (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Chikomeni Chirwa[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article per se -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one -- but this neither demonstrates that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy, nor evinces a reason to treat his unsuccessful candidacy as more special than other people's unsuccessful candidacies. This was also created while his candidacy was still a going concern, and should have been deleted at the time as a campaign brochure, but it wasn't and now we're here. Bearcat (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of counties of the United States[edit]

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

WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The vast majority of these have no source, no context, and aren't even important enough to be discussed in the article on the county itself. Thankfully the list is very incomplete, as the US has more than 3000 counties apparently. Fram (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we can say something substantive about the flags in the articles on the counties it can be done there. There is no justification for this gallery article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely impractical to include all the flags of all the counties in the US per WP:TOOLONG. The flags should just be included in the articles for the respective counties as this fails WP:NLIST. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Flags of cities of the United States. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This information may be better suited on Wiki-commons. Note that being too long is never a valid excuse to delete something. Any section for a state that was long enough could be split off into a different article. Dream Focus 00:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are not Vexillopedia. This can just as easily be managed with a Commons cat, without being a WP:NOT-worthy terrible idea either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is actually an gallery of images that is non-free. Also, this is unnecessary gallery about images of flags and WP:LISTCRUFT. 180.214.232.13 (talk / contribs) 22:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke em all SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article could be transformed into a redirect to county flags of the United States by regions. The pages then explain the meanings of the county flags. An example would be: A user goes to this page, chooses "Flags of counties in the western United States" then scrolls to Colorado, which has the flag and meaning of Fremont County's flag. The user is also able to see meanings and other information for other flags in the western United States that have one. Flags without meanings are left on the Commons page. Flagvisioner (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Keep My improvements to the Michigan section and the new references illustrate what this article could become. And that sources do exist, even if they have not been put into the article yet. County flags vary greatly by state and within each state. Some states have county flags in every county. Per Flagvisioner regional subgroups might make the article more workable. Cities and counties are neither synonomous, coextensive, nor fungible. Article can be expanded and be better sourced. That it needs more soucing is no reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Flags of the World considered reliable. It's content is user submitted by members of it's mailing list and according to it's own disclaimer "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website."[11] See this 2011 RSN thread on the topic.
    If this is what most of the sourcing would be I don't think it's worth keeping. Cakelot1 (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You overlook the actual content, and highlight only the disclaimer. You overlook that the material is also sourced with links to the sources. This is a relatively obscure subject, down to a micro level. And finding books, newspapers or magazines on each flag is inherently problematical.
To be sure, there is always hostility and suspicion of any other wiki project. E.g., Find a grave, which is still a reliable source on finding places of internment. For other facts there are problems, but for gravesites not so much. There is a certain irony in all this.
But you are entitled to your own opinion on this wikipedia page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per RSP Find a Grave is not generally reliable because it is user generated. As far a I know this is the case for all user generated sources (WP:USG) whether it's us or others (see literally any other user generated source on WP:RSP).
In terms of the sources listed at Flags of the world for the Michigan counties, some [12] [13] seem to cite sources, others [14] [15] don't give any. [16] cites some information to Wikipedia. I simply don't see these as useful sources as we can't trust that they have got it right. They might, they might not, we can't be sure without checking the original source, which at that point we would just cite.
I am asking because adding information from Flags of the World just doesn't seem very substantial and doesn't bring it up to much more then a gallery. Cakelot1 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is the best that can be done (a source of dubious reliability with only some basic mathematical facts), then that is far from enough to justify this, or even much smaller by-state lists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to WP:NOTGALLERY. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is just a listcruft and has less encyclopedic value. Fails WP:NOTGALLERY. 182.2.136.108 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This has now been canvassed (to both A) a partisan audience and B) with a partisan message) to the Article Rescue Squadron page (with a very non-neutral "This is part of a larger effort to denude flag articles around the world"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian It is a fact. Your distinction doesn't change the problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag lists that should have been on Commons The link speaks for itself. Your gratuitous and unwarranted claim of canvassed at the deletion page is b.s. I have no illusions that this posting will change the outcome. No one showed up. But you can spread your poison. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that 11 participants is "no one showed up" is being rather plainly economical with the truth. There was neither A) a need to ask for more participation with a non-neutral message; nor B) post it to a specific partisan group (speaking of "no illusions", I have absolutely no illusions about the Article Retention Squad). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one from WP:ARS. (Except sleepy amphbian, who hangs out at ARS, and showed up to vote/support/discuss delete – take your pick). You choose to misquote and misunderstand. Deliberately or not. 'Dona nobis pacem indeed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The gallery of flags is actually just an listcruft, too little encyclopedic value. 140.213.132.86 (talk / contribs) 14:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Gambian Creole people. ✗plicit 01:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gambian Creole people[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Prakash[edit]

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

No evidence of playing "multiple significant roles" in notable productions per WP:NACTOR. Lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. She was a Bigg Boss contestant but that alone cannot be a claim for notability as per WP:BIGBROTHER. Ab207 (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. While there are content issues, consensus is they can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Ness Monster in popular culture[edit]

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

I am running out of ways to say this differently. Is this topic potentially notable? Probably. Is there anything to rescue from this iteration of WP:NOTTVTROPES? Not likely. Another mostly unreferenced list of ORish collection of mentions of topic x in random works. Fails WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. At best, WP:TNT applies with no prejudice to anyone rewriting this at some future point from scratch. This one has no inclusion criteria and is just pure TVTropic listcruft. PS. This was kept 4 years ago but I am amazed at the arguments used back then: "Keep This is a fine dumping ground for when it becomes necessary to clear out the main Loch Ness Monster article." Seriously? Wikipedia should never be a dumping grounds for trivia. Groan. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Lists, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too little sourcing for such a large article. Wikipedia is not meant to be TV tropes. It is not meant to be an indicriminate listing of every time something happened or some character appeared in a work of fiction, no matter how minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one. Despite the expressed misgivings, I want to take up one argument form the previous deletion dicussion by Coolabahapple: This can be a useful list for navigation among notable entries, where the Loch Ness monster plays a main role in popular culture. Sure, the great majority here are bad examples, and most should be removed. But I think there are more than a handful of entries (especially in the film section) which would remain after proper trimming, and therefore warrant a list. The topic fullfills WP:LISTN, being discussed in secondary source like this article and The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters' entry "Loch Ness Monster". It can be improved by normal editing and is therefore not a case of WP:TNT. Daranios (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, I have removed, as far as I have seen, all the trivial entries where Nessie is just a mention or sidenote, leaving what either has blue links or sources (not sure if all of those are secondary). That's what I think should be WP:PRESERVEd (with room for more improvement of course). Daranios (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now attempted to formulate inclusion criteria, addressing another of the concerns raised in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start, but right now the article still is plagued by the same problems, it's just a bit shorter. Half of the entries still lack a reference, most of the others are primary sources or mentions in passing, and the proposed inclusion criteria are not based on any reliable sources - and we deleted plenty of such 'list sof notable mentions'. I think TNT still applies and this needs to be prose-ified and completely rewritten if it was to be kept, like what happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I feel my arguments have mostly been ignored in this response, I try not to repeat myself too much: "Half of the entries still lack a reference" - please kindly check The Ashgate Encyclopedia yourself, as well as all the sources present in the linked articles. Can (most of) the unreferenced entries be referenced? Yes. This has not to be done now, as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I have made a start, would you like to join in? Why should this fail WP:LISTN despite the two suggested sources? The inclusion criteria are not based on a secondary source, they are based on the WP:LISTN (as well as WP:IPCEXAMPLES, for that matter): "limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." This is already a discretionary, not a mandatory requirement. (Very few entries without a Wikipedia article remain, based on sources. If they should be removed or kept can be discussed and is another matter of simple clean-up.) As for "we deleted plenty of such 'list sof notable mentions'", Clarityfiend has already pointed out the difference. Changing the article to prose may be a good idea. It should in my view retain all blue-linked entries in order to still fullfill the navigation function. I have not seen so far seen that being in list form would be grounds for WP:TNT. Daranios (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While Ashgate is a good source, I stand by my view that there is nothing redeemable here. The fact that the topic is notable, and that a few movies mentioned in this reliable source are part of the list here, doesn't mean WP:TNT is not applicable. Per WP:IPC, the list format is not correct for such articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: WP:IPC says "Bulleted list format should be avoided when practical in favor of normal prose" (emphasis mine). So prose is encouraged but not mandatory in every case. More improtantly, that essay does not suggest WP:TNTing imperfect articles, but rather says "excessively long section can be trimmed by removing entries unlikely to have verifiable discussion of significance. Entries that make only passing reference to the subject can usually be removed." That's exactly what I've tried to do. "there is nothing redeemable here" also suggest that the purpose of navigation would never be applicable for topics which have "in popular culture" in their scope. That seems to be in opposition to the WP:LISTPURPS guideline. Daranios (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios As the policies indicate, prose is preferred. Or are you against the prose rewrite? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I think its great that the current prose version of the article was created and covers the topic. But what it does no longer do, and which I am missing, is collecting all Wikipedia articles about Nessie-themed fiction in one place. The former (trimmed) list version did that. But as the problem of maintance - which I don't find a strong argument - and others have been put forward, I have tried to achieve the same by linking to the existing category, which has none of the "we need secondary sources" ballast in that regard. Daranios (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Category solution seems good, considering this is what they are for, whereas such lists, IMHO, fail when tested vs INDISCRIMINATE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Movies, TV shows, etc. specifically about the LNM are plentiful and significant, unlike the usual drivel in "in popular culture" lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's plenty of relevance to this article, provides a good jumping point for research. AtFirstLight (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought that Loch Ness Monster was a pop culture creation to begin with, making this article extremely redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:TompaDompa has unilaterally deleted everything and started rewriting as they see fit. I have reverted that to the last ungutted version until a consensus has been reached. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like Clarityfiend I am also concerned that we don't loose redeemable information, and I think this page has and should retain the navigation function of allowing interested readers to find the all relevant articles on Wikipedia. That said, prose is preferred when there isn't a good reason against it, and TompaDompa has a good record of improving articles deemed lacking in this regard, and saving them from deletion. So would it make sense to create the prose version in draftspace first, until it is clear that information is not lost? And only then transport it over here? Thanks for the effort on all sides, we all try to get the best solution here. Daranios (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The simple solution is to delete this now, with no prejudice to anyone working on this in a draftspace. Some content, such as the reference to the Ashagate encyclopedia, or categories, can be reused. But the trivial TVTrople-like content needs to go. TNT has been invoked and linked. As expected from TompaDompa, this is a major improvement, but if Clarityfiend insists on reverting, then I think we have no choice but to deny the readers the improved article for now, hard delete the old garbage in a week or however long it takes for this AfD to close, and only then we can add the TompaDompa's proper article to the project. The alternative is Clarityfiend accepting a WP:TROUT for their actions, not disrupting the rewrite, and then the readers can benefit from a proper article on this topic from today onward. PS. As before, I'd suggest withdrawing this deletion discussion, but I cannot do so if there is no consensus on which version is superior, as IMHO the old version has no value outside historic example of how not to write such artcles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Are you now the Afd judge, jury and executioner? You, it seems, have already made the decision, and the rest of us are wasting our time discussing things. Also, I made no judgment on what TompaDompa wrote; I just strenuously object to hiding what it is we're here to consider! Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend I am just someone who knows how to write quality content about popculture, since I've gotten several 'in fiction/popculture' etc. articles to GA status. Have you? If not, I suggest you try this first and then come back to offer your thoughts on what are best (or even acceptable) practices. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Oh, are we playing the "I'm better at X than you, so you shouldn't have a say in the matter" card now? When a list is being considered for deletion, does it really make sense to eliminate every example? Does that really further the discussion? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend In a proper rewrite of IPC articles, some examples are kept, although properly referenced and situated in analytical context, which is superior to an unreferenced list of trivia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: When making a drastic change in the midst of an ongoing discussion, IMO the proper procedure is, as Daranios has suggested and has been done in other Afds, make a draft. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep conditional on retaining the prose format I have introduced (see this version). Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. I have therefore replaced the list with a proper prose article based on sources about the topic, much as with WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture.
    Calling this "unilaterally deleting everything" is rather silly, methinks, seeing as rewriting the article like this has repeatedly been demonstrated to turn the entire deletion discussion moot by improving the article such that the issues raised in the nomination no longer apply. Indeed, improving articles that have been nominated for deletion where possible is generally considered best practices.
    As for the list that existed, I hardly think This page lists notable appearances in fiction, and notable creative works where the Loch Ness Monster is a major plot point or character. is a proper set of WP:LISTCRITERIA since those are supposed to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Moreover, if the idea was to have a navigational list, it should have looked way more like this and way less like this. The latter is a TV Tropes-style list, which is something that already exists at the proper location. TompaDompa (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's so, than I guess noone will object to the creation of a List of creative works about the Loch Ness Monster or some such with the entries here organized in the same way as in List of Christmas-themed literature, with the purpose of navigation, right? That would be complementary to the prose version here which covers that "as a general topic". I am not sure if that would be used a lot, but I'd say it's not unlikely that users would want to know which fictional works feature Nessie. And it's little work to create, based on what has been done by previous users. Daranios (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't say I see the point. You'd still have to come up with proper WP:LISTCRITERIA for inclusion, and as you say it's not terribly likely that anyone would use it. And of course there's the issue of having to maintain it so it doesn't turn into a TV Tropes-style list. TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @TompaDompa: List criteria analoguous to List of Christmas-themed literature, I guess. Daranios (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't consider that a good list to emulate in terms of WP:LISTCRITERIA, because the ones over there are notable literary works which are set at Christmas time, or contain Christmas amongst the central themes, which isn't really unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. There's also quite a difference between a theme/setting (Christmas) and a creature/character (Loch Ness Monster) appearing in a work. What it is a good examples of is how to format a navigational list of fictional/pop culture works. You could of course use something along the lines of "works mentioned by reliable secondary/tertiary sources on the topic of the Loch Ness Monster in popular culture" as the inclusion criteria, but in that case you could just use those sources to expand the prose article instead, so I don't think such a list would add much value. A problem with lists like this is that as soon as you add some text to an entry to explain why it is included, what you have is no longer a purely navigational list but a TV Tropes-style list all over again. TompaDompa (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @TompaDompa: You wouldn't happen to have a better example to emulate, then? To me the distinction based on my phrasing seemed pretty clear - is it a main character? Is it a major plot point? - but that does not seem to be the case in general. As for secondary sources: All the blue linked entries should have secondary sources, or will disappear eventually if they don't. So there will be some cases beyond what's here now. (And at least one less, as it is only one among many plot points in the Dr. Lao.) Daranios (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • No better example off the top of my head, no. Whether it is a major plot point is not objective, it requires a judgment call. We're not supposed to do that, we're supposed to leave it to the sources. The point of a navigational list is to help people find the article that they're looking for. As Cakelot1 pointed out below, it's not likely that such a list would be helpful here. TompaDompa (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Loch Ness Monster in popular culture is not the same as a List of Loch Ness Monster-themed literature. And unsurprisingly, I still consider the List of Christmas-themed literature quite a low quality listicle. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but as prose I agree with pretty much everything that TompaDompa said above. I'd like to add, that I find the idea that this could be navigational list a bit strange. I just don't see anybody trying to find, say Terror of the Zygons, going to an article called Loch Ness Monster in popular culture and slogging through short explanations of how a select few stories use Nessie in the story. It would seem much more useful as an overview of Loch Ness Monster in popular culture as a general topic based on the sources. Cakelot1 (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is notable and can be preserved as list or prose. WP:TNT does not apply. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP does. Not sure why this was nominated again. Previous nomination resulted in WP:SNOW. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the various good points above. WP:NOTTVTROPES is just a very recent essay, and should not be brandished in deletion discussions, if it even applies here. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a pretty relevant essay. Ping the author (User:TenPoundHammer) on their thoughts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cobra Starship. consensus is clear among established editors Star Mississippi 02:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Asher[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search. No reviews by notable critics, no profiles in RS. Suggest a redirect to Cobra Starship. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about this one? It seems on-point. It covers age, band, education, and the relation to Jane Asher. And we can identify who the byline is.
    • Bain, Ellissa (2022-04-07). "Who is Britney Spear's assistant Vicky-T? Meet Victoria Asher". HITC.com.
  • There's also this one, which is actually different to the other, even though it's the same headline. Obviously sourced to an interview in part, but it covers the same sort of ground in between the interview bits. And it at least claims to fact check and names its editors and this author.
  • They don't have the look of recycled press releases, seem reliable, have identifiable authors, are in depth — and there are at least two of them. I'd say, at this point, that this is not the sort of in-a-university-press-book sourcing that you and I are used to from some of the biography articles that we've tackled recently. But in fact this person is in a university press book, it turns out. Fathallah 2020, pp. 24–25 documents the Cobra Starship membership and comments on it. Alone, yes, that would be a mention in the other article. But we have two biography sources that go into background, too. Judith May Fathallah of Solent University confirms that the celebrity news biographies aren't just hot air.
    • Fathallah, Judith May (2020). Emo: How Fans Defined a Subculture. University of Iowa Press. ISBN 9781609387242.
  • Then there are old issues of Billboard magazine, and the Asher family and Cobra Starship/Vicky-T mention in Chris O'Dell's (yes, that one) 2009 autobiography (page 384). So two major sources and some little ones confirming bits and pieces. I mention merely in passing that the subject is on a book on the Beatles, Asher 2019, p. 52, documenting the Vicky-T pseudonym. But that's because the author is the subject's father. It isn't in-depth, either. It would at least have sourced that sentence in the prior article, though. Peter Asher is probably not lying about the name of xyr daughter, even if we'd vastly prefer other sources for anything else, and probably has enough subject expertise to know whether someone has a music career. ☺
  • Oddest for last: a CUP textbook for learning English, Hart & Stranks 2010, p. 118. Not in-depth, and like Fathallah 2020 if it were the only thing. And not on-point with the actual expert subject matter, which is why I wouldn't bother with it at all despite its provenance. But a bizarre second university press book that came up when looking.
    • Hart, Brian; Stranks, Jeff (2010). American English in Mind Starter Teacher's Edition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521733304. Victoria Asher is American, but some of her family is from Britain.
  • Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The HITC source didn't look reliable to me, and although thethings does have a corrections and gave checking policy, their about us page says Celebrity Coverage: If you’re talking about it, we’re talking about it. We want to know how much celebrities are making, where they’re living, who they’re dating, and most importantly, what they’re up to right. Now. When we know, you know. The Hollywood world is full of twists and turns. This is why our content dives deep into the subject and uncovers the complicated and most important questions you might have about the latest celebrity drama. Get the answers you need, all in one place. Despite having those editorial policies published, I don't think a site focused on celebrity drama really works to establish notability.

      As for the books, I am consistently astounded by your ability to find book sources. Would you say the book sources are enough significant coverage to establish notability? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cobra Starship - This one is admittedly a close call. Kudos to Uncle G above for tracking down obscure sources, but I don't see them getting Victoria past the WP:NOTINHERITED hurdle. She got some notice as the assistant during the "FreeBritney" saga but those stories just show her connection to a controversy surrounding someone else. The books add the fact that she has a notable father. But she does not achieve notability by inheriting it from Britney or her father or Cobra Starship. All of her useful sources are about her activities with Cobra Starship and her solo music has gained no reliable notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this page being considered for deletion and why has more than half of it been deleted? I understand the lame gossip article about her and Patrick Stump but the rest is all fact. She IS the daughter of Peter Asher and Wendy Asher. She also IS the assistant of Britney Spears as confirmed by articles as well as Britney's instagram page herself.

      Makes no sense that this page would be deleted at all. It has been up for many years and is all backed by fact. Rumraisinv (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)— Rumraisinv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • There is literally no reason to delete this page. Someone has been removing true information from it in an effort to invalidate the page. Please return it to its rightful status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:C:2C11:0:0:0:2 (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — 2600:387:C:2C11:0:0:0:2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I agree. Victoria Asher has many achievements through her musician and film year. On her website https://vickyt.com/about the About page and the Print page, she has many valid evidences that she worked with Cobra Starship https://www.altpress.com/features/women-in-rock-2000s-music/. She is a daughter of Pete Asher https://www.celebnetworthpost.com/peter-asher. She is also Britney Spears's assistant https://www.thethings.com/who-is-britney-spears-assistant-vicky-t-victoria-asher-details/. She did many performances worldwide with Cobra Starship: https://vickyt.com/video-press-performance . It would be injustice to delete her page. Ubering cacti (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)— Ubering cacti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • That's a primary source from the subject, a single paragraph, an unreliable source, an unreliable source, and a primary source from the subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ScottishFinnishRadish Thanks for pointing that out. I hope more people are looking into this. Victoria has been in the music and film industry for a long time. She is also a great person to know on Instagram. It would be a shame to delete her page. I truly hope for more people are looking in for her reliable sources. Ubering cacti (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current arguments for "keep" are weak and not policy-based. They do not demonstrate encyclopedic notability. However, several sources have been brought forth, and it seems this may be a borderline case. Therefore I am relisting this should any additional sources be brought forth which could show GNG nor NBIO is met. The length of time the article has been on Wikipedia, whether or not it is "factual", and being related or employed by famous people, all of these are not valid reasons for keeping an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This all seems very tabloid, and it's not my usual area. But there is tons of news about her job as Britney Spears assistant
  • If you google news search "Spears" AND "Vicky-T" you get lots of stuff. It does suggest notability, but I don't know wikipeia's appraoch to tabloid/pop culture notability well, so I'll refrain from !voting. CT55555 (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the fact that the About Us link doesn't work, and the privacy policy is so poorly copy/pasted that it still has the Suggested text: in place, I'd say it's probably not a reliable source, even moreso for a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A slew of IPs have posted "Don't Delete" on the Talk page of this discussion, mostly with no reasons given, or else that she is being targeted because she is an assistant to Britney Spears, which is at present not part of the article being considered for deletion. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also removed a bunch of the same that were posted above the AfD templates. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So far, 13 accounts have posted incorrectly to the talk page, and 11 have done nothing else in Wikipedia. For the remaining 2, this is the second or third thing they're ever done. Also note the repeated claims. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am moving comments that ScottishFinnishRadish removed as they are constructive and done in good faith, just in the wrong place and in ignorance of policy: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vicky is a great human being besides of course being a great musician as well. I don’t even know why her wiki is considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:AB40:A6:C0FE:1948:7C81:7510 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoria Asher is 34 and awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.221.216 (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is born 1988 on Jan. 20, 1988. That would make her 34. 108.11.24.237 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let’s not delete this page, that would be neat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:600:4B00:0:0:0:8F5B (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.219.97 (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.92.175 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • VickyT is an awesome artist. Her recent activity as Britney's assistant put her in the spotlight. Unfortunately, she gained attention from bad people or crazy Britney's fans too. Last modifications of her page seems to be the work of malevelent person. Deleting her page would be unfair and a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB14:83BE:9900:4D1A:1A96:6322:736B (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make no sense to delete this artists page. Everything written is true. She is an incredible musician and definitely made her mark in the music world. To delete that would make no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.111.53 (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoria Asher is a wonderful person and artist who inspires people like myself with her music and background. I believe the people or person who trying to get Victoria's wikipedia page deleted is doing so out of spite since she has been thrown into the spotlight very recently by her new career move as Britney Spears assistant. This is not a valid reason to delete a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:3E34:700:909D:F25A:5786:CAB4 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She has plenty of previous entertainment history to have a wiki page. Deletion not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:4701:E4CB:64D7:3242:C91D:5335 (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So now that those are all here (above), that is a lot of enthusiasm but little idea of how to make a case for notability. Note that IPs now blocked. David notMD (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations & Notability have been added. See Victoria Asher's Reference List. This nomination for deletion is truly a sign of sabotage - and a big shame since women have been systemically neglected by history. Asher is well known musician in a male dominated genre.[1] I highly suggest removing the AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpress1 (talk • contribs)
  • You added:
    • [17] which is not significant coverage
    • [18] which is not significant coverage, merely a single quote among many
    • [19] which simply mentions her name once
    • [20] which isn't an RS, and isn't significant coverage anyway
    • [21] is an interview with her parents, not independent, doesn't establish notability
    • [22] an interview with a non-notable publication, doesn't establish notability
    • [23] is coverage about the band, not coverage of her, mentions her name once
    • [24] another interview with a non-notable publication, doesn't establish notability
  • Lastly, please leave out the personal attacks about sabotage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Knopper, Steve (21 June 2018). "'It Was 11 Guys on a Bus, and Then Me': Women on the Warped Tour". New York Times. Retrieved 20 April 2022.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to get some policy based comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Had the university press books not been a surprise, I'd have gone into the magazine sources more. I wasn't expecting this to still be open after my having been distracted by so many things. But since it is, here goes: Yes, the magazines want to publish ridiculous fluff about who is friends with whom this week, but the almost accidental byproduct of that is valid non-trivial biographical content of the subject, from sources whose authors and editors I can name, with a fact checking policy. This isn't the sort of high grade stuff that some biographies have, but it is what we are looking for: in-depth material by identifiable people with known good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. I can identify Amelia Harvey and Elissa Bain and the magazine editors. And they tell me things like when the article subject dropped out of university for a music career.

    So no, these don't get to be unreliable just because they headline the useless celebrity fluff. They address the topic on point and in depth enough that I know things like where the subject studied film. They aren't recycled press releases. And they aren't first person interviews. I do not fault them for satisfying our criteria just because they are in the bands, businesses, and (living person) biographies topic area. It isn't right to do that. They count.

    Indeed, this is tame sourcing by the standards of some of the fawning, hagiographic, exaggerated, and sometimes obviously downright fabricated biographical press content that one has to filter out for biographies of long-dead people. ☺Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or Delete Would prefer delete as she fails WP:SIGCOV. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage, but a redirect would acceptable. scope_creepTalk 10:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 1962 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL). Hog Farm Talk 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1962 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL – Group 3)[edit]

1962 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL – Group 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This information is already covered by 1962 FIFA World Cup qualification, don't know why there are multiple little pages of the same information. Not a valid WP:CONTENTFORK. Govvy (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AppMaster[edit]

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

This small company, founded in 2019, does not have significant coverage. For instance when searching for AppMaster+"Oleg Sotnikov" (founder) there are only 25 results, and none of them are reliable independent sources with in depth coverage. Pikavoom Talk 09:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note.
I do not know the person who tried to edit my article. I can just guess since we published to our twitter that we made an article for wikipedia that someone got in to disrupt our content.
I am all for honest and open peer review.
And please do not call it spam! We'll work on the notability and make the article meet the WP:NCORP criteria
Maybe you can point out the things that I can work on to make it stay on Wikipedia with certain alerts on improvement at the beginning of the article. In any case, we as a team are all for transparency and those disrupting are definitely not from AppMaster Borntobeanna (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I would like to move the article into draftspace to work on the notability, can I do it now or should I wait until the deletion discussion is over? Im assuming the article is going to be deleted so I would like a chance to keep working on it Borntobeanna (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those do not satisfy the sourcing requirements for companies. Closer note that Borntobeanna has a declared COI on AppMaster and is ineligible to vote. 13:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment AppMaster was moved, leaving a redirect to a page which was then deleted. I retargeted it from the redlink to AppMaster.io which I have nominated for deletion. Please feel free to merge my nomination with this one (i.e. bin it). And it's moved again while I was writing this, so please check the latest web of redirects before !voting. Certes (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked - now all is in place. There's someone messing with the article as I am trying to edit it and bring more reliable sources in Borntobeanna (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is back at AppMaster, with a similar article at Draft:AppMaster.io. Certes (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am rooting for just giving the chance to edit the article. How is it different from this one for example Buildbox? Anton rumyan (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC) — Anton rumyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Searches on GNews turned up nothing (Significant coverage from RS) for "AppMaster". Fails WP:NCORP. Fabiobengario (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is spam of a product that does not meet WP:NCORP. And it's disruptive. See AppMaster.io. MarioGom (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, so much of disruption and promotion, another similar article is also at AfD. Just delete and salt. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I'm going to Assume Good Faith that Borntobeanna wants the article to meet notability guidelines, but the place to bring it to that standard is not in mainspace. casualdejekyll 20:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Three of the accounts commenting above - Borntobeanna, Hello alu and Anton rumyan - are confirmed to one another, and all are now blocked. I have struck the comments left by the sock accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or put back into user space, since it is "too soon" for this to meet notability. Either ten years or an IPO, orother news first. This is not the place to promote your app. 23:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Software. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Beckles[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP (possibly WP:AUTOBIO, as it was created by an WP:SPA with virtually no history of contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic) of a person not well-sourced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim here, that he created and hosted a TV show, is not "inherently" notable enough to automatically entitle him to a standalone BLP as a separate topic from the show -- it's one where he would have to clear WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in his own right, but it's not clear that the sourcing here is actually doing what's required. Half of the footnotes here are primary sources (IMDb, the show's own self-published content about itself) that aren't support for notability at all, and almost everything else is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose primary subject is something else. I can only see one source here (The New York Times) that's substantively enough about Derrick Beckles to count for something, but one GNG-worthy source isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A interviews, in which the subject is talking about himself in the first person, are acceptable for sourcing stray facts after GNG has already been passed by stronger sources, but do not count for anything toward the initial question of whether GNG has been passed in the first place, so that's a no on Den of Geek. The New York Times is already in the article and was already identified as such in my nomination statement, so it isn't a new data point that wasn't already taken into account, and the Philadelphia Inquirer link is paywalled as "subscriber only" content, such that I can't read it in order to evaluate how much it does or doesn't say about him — and even if I just take your word for it (despite my fairly strong doubts that you're actually a paid subscriber to the Philadelphia Inquirer either) that it says enough to count for something, even just passing WP:GNG still requires more than just two acceptable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops User:Bearcat - I double-checked and I thought it was a different New York Time reference; odd. Also odd, I checked that Philadelphia Daily News link just now (which is the newspaper the article appeared in - both seem to share the same website) and I'm not hitting a paywall - even in incognito mode. Perhaps it's regional - but I thought you were in Canada as well. I'd found it originally in Proquest (ProQuest 856671902) - but I was trying to make it easier by linking the online version I found later. Nfitz (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus to not keep, no consensus about a redirect. Sandstein 06:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Fry[edit]

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

Subjects lacks significant roles or coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG (proposed by 108.41.60.144, this article for deletion page created by Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks the coverage or significant roles to merit an article for actors or biographies. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LCD memory effect[edit]

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

Unsourced dicdef created in 2006 by copying from Memory effect, which at that point was completely unsourced but is now properly sourced. This stub was unsourced when created and is still unsourced. Googling doesn't find anything much about this specific concept, and the word "Memory" doesn't occur in Liquid-crystal display, but this term could perhaps be redirected there if something relevant could be added to that article, but otherwise this stub is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 08:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1895)[edit]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1895) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. I can't access the obituary in his local paper, so I don't know if it is family-written or newspaper-written: but the other two sources are passing mentions, and nothing in the article indicates why he would be a notable person. Searching for more information mainly leads me to somewhat more notable namesakes (possibly family), including an Olympic rower, but I see nothing substantial about this person. Fram (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overlay assay[edit]

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

This has been an unsourced dicdef for 17 years - created by an IP in 2004. A PROD last year was reverted with "Google Books and Scholar searches find loads of sources. It just needs someone with more knowledge of the subject area than I have to add some", but no-one has come along to do so. Googling finds the term used in longer phrases such as "Protein Membrane Overlay Assay" but there is not an easily-found definition or basis for an article on OA as such. This stub does not seem to be an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 07:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. PamD 07:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term is used a lot, but I agree with nomination: I didn’t find any suitable secondary sources for an encyclopedia entry. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against its recreation by someone who actually has something useful to say about the subject, and a few references to back it up. The current one-liner is too short to help our readers, and too short to save future editors any effort. Elemimele (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerash FC[edit]

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

Previously deleted article, non-notable association football team competing in Saudi Second Division - third tier of Saudi football. No references meet notability for NSPORT Whiteguru (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qous Club[edit]

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

Previously deleted article, non-notable association football team competing in Saudi Second Division - third tier of Saudi football. No references meet notability for NSPORT Whiteguru (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) PamD 11:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State patient[edit]

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

Unsourced dictionary definition, not an asset to the encyclopedia. Could possibly be redirected to an appropriate article, but I can't find the term mentioned elsewhere in the encyclopedia. PamD 07:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Material added to reflect the importance of this provision and how people from the psychiatric survivors movement challenged the their treatment under this. Leutha (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as nominator: Delighted to see the extended and sourced article, thanks @Leutha:. PamD 11:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ventje Male[edit]

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

Blocked user. Non notable weightlifting competitor. Does not satisfy GNG Whiteguru (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MILK Books[edit]

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

This feels promotional to me (though not enough to go full G11), and I'm not seeing anything that justifies the article's inclusion under WP:NCORP. My WP:BEFORE check also brought up nothing of note. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 04:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and New Zealand. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 04:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom, advertisement of a non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't even much non independent coverage on them as far as I can tell, let alone independent and in-depth. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional article and certainly nothing in the way of notability, not even the NZ Herald article does it any. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete> Promo article and subject fails WP:NCORP. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too promotional and advertising!Fabiobengario (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created by Cait3mo who did exactly 10 edits and waited the required number of days to be auto-confirmed before creating this one article. Clearly a paid promotional article.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 21:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say delete from reading WP:NCORP policy you mentioned, and @Cait3mo's account does feel promotional, but I researched a bit deeper and I think there is valuable knowledge in the 'History' section of their company (the part about 'M.I.L.K.' series). Maybe that could be turned into a new article about M.I.L.K.?
Also it seems they are mentioned by NCORPs including Cosmopolitan, New York Magazine, and Brides.com, which @Cait3mo did not mention in their creation of the page. I found a similar company 'Mixbook' while researching 'MILK Books' and found they have a Wikipedia page which hasn't been flagged for deletion, but is on a similar plane to this article - because of that I say keep, but so long as there's some revisions to make the article feel less promotional and be more valuable. 3ed3nB (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC) — 3ed3nB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I note that 3ed3nB is a new user who only turns up because of this deletion discussion. If they feel there should be an article on the original reason for the Company from their history, they can start a new article on that, this discussion about the photo book company that doesn't get WP:INHERITORG because of the art project it was started from. Next, none of the references added meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP as they aren't about the company itself but standard discussion about the photo albums. I also advise the user to read WP:OTHERSTUFF regarding Mixbooks.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 00:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3ed3nB (talk · contribs) is more than likely a sock of Cait3mo (talk · contribs). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from reading through the comments and postings on the internet I think maybe the article should be refocussed to being about Blackwell and Ruth publishers. Milk Books are their publication and it seems to be globally significant in the field of wedding and personal online photo albums. Whether that would translate into articles in main line newspapers or other publications, I am uncertain, but the coverage is certainly extensive in the field Milk Books are in. Is there a lot of self promotion, yes, but that would be expected. What I do find interesting is that for a publisher in New Zealand, there seems to be wide coverage globally. On the surface it appears there should be enough to meet WP:GNG. And just side comment and not something I intend to discuss further - because someone has been editing Wiki for a short time is not a valid reason for dismissing their comments about an article. NealeWellington (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references meet our criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 13:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 11:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States federal courthouses in the Eleventh Circuit[edit]

List of United States federal courthouses in the Eleventh Circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE of List of United States federal courthouses in Alabama, List of United States federal courthouses in Georgia, and List of United States federal courthouses in Florida by transcluding the tables in these primary lists. It is also a redundant duplicate of List of United States federal courthouses, which also transcludes those. I see no need to have these tables in multiple places like this: anyone seeking courthouses in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is capable of looking at either the Alabama, Georgia, and Florida section of the national list or the Alabama, Georgia, and Florida lists. Moreover, these tables include courthouses used by District Courts (not just the Circuit Court of Appeals) and buildings that no longer exist or are now used for other purposes, so grouping by circuit in addition to state and country is somewhat arbitrary. Reywas92Talk 20:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Reywas92Talk 20:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as article creator. My thinking, very straightforwardly, is that it is conceivable that somone would need to see all the courthouses in the Circuit specifically, and it costs us nothing to have a page where all of these are together. Why make a reader go three different places? Conversely, the single list of all federal courthouses, while useful in its comprehensiveness, is a very long page, and a reader who is specifically only interested in courthouses from one of the eleven Circuits should not need to hunt through the 50+ other states and territories to find this handful. There is no question that United States federal courthouses are notable, both individually and in the aggregate, so I see no case against offering this particular natural grouping of them. BD2412 T 20:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per BD2412. I would argue that this page is notable enough to keep and would be helpful to Wikipedia users if it was retained. Historyday01 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Sokpe[edit]

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

Not seeing independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edwardx, subject meets the minimum threshold for meeting notability by the English Wikipedia standards of three articles. Article has about 8 articles referenced to meet the notability and more over the article is a Stub which indicates the article meets the minimum threshold and is subject to improvement. I believe those should be measures that should be pointed at when issues of deletion comes up. Owula kpakpo (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello, can you direct me to where the English Wikipedia minimum threshold is established at three? And the scope of GNG is more than number, are the 8 sources you mentioned independent and reliable? NiklausGerard (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can't comment on the reliability of the sources used, leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Lot of discussion, absolutely no consensus Star Mississippi 03:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Momotenko Levitsky[edit]

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

Subject does not meet criteria for WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICOTHER. JSTOR turns up only two hits, as one of many names included in lists. Subject won second prize at an electronic music festival, but it doesn't appear to be a notable one. Most sources in article consists of playlists from Concertzender [ne], a formerly government-funded radio station that is now a privately-owned non-profit station which broadcasts online only. Its audience, as a result, appears to be niche. News searches turn up a brief interview from Omroep Brabant and review from De Volkskrant, but nothing else. Can't find anything that establishes subject's notability as an influence, teacher, etc. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you discriminate Concertzender, the unique radio-station as a trustful source which exists from 1982 and who made thousands of great and seldom recordings of full festivals, concerts, projects etc... , so their audience is a niche, almost nothing according for your conclusions. So let's then delete all this page of the composer because you think that Wikipedia is made by you and you may discriminate everything that is not according your "find anything that establishes subject's notability as an influence, teacher, etc"... and the composer actually not exists at all.
I will send this link with your horrible conclusions about Concertzender to the members of the broadcaster! Shame! 2-xite (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is making unilateral decisions about anything here. That's the whole point of this process, which is not based on personal feelings, but on an interpretation of WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSICOTHER. You are welcome to disagree and state your reasons why. Everybody, including myself, is participating here with an open mind. Please refrain from personal attacks and keep your focus on the subject at hand. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you even not read the article, only focusing on deleting and reordering lines according your personal taste and "open mind"...
You do not have to interpret something, its all in the text, there.
para 1 of the holy criteria for WP:COMPOSER
NTR ZaterdagMatinee Series at Concertgebouw Amsterdam will never give repeatedly commissions to some DIYr or similar. The composer wrote for Netherlands Radio Choir and Radio Philharmonic Orchestra "at least" 2 notable compositions, those were performed together with names Rachmaninov or Mahler in Concertegebow Amsterdam and live broadcasted radio / video streamed... 2-xite (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the subject meets WP:ANYBIO and the WP:GNG. ANYBIO as the composer is included in the national music dictionary.[25] This biography plus other excellent sources[26][27] are sufficient for the General Notability Guideline. I further agree that the nominator talks down the Concertzender, where the composer has often been broadcasted.[28] The frequent broadcasts testify to his importance in contemporary Dutch classical music. But not only the Concertzender is talked down. Great sources are as well. Nominator writes right after after alluding to these: but nothing else. Why would one do that? Next they write Can't find anything that establishes subject's notability as an influence, teacher, etc.. This is essentially the same WP:HERRING as the beginning, Subject does not meet criteria for WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICOTHER. But WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSICOTHER are not the only track by which an individual is notable! Now everyone who nominates an article wants to write a compelling intro. In general, when the subject is notable, this often gets into talking accomplishments and sources down and sidetracking the reader. In such cases, the branch solution is to phrase introductions more carefully (important especially for BLP!) yet the root solution is not to nominate notable subjects! gidonb (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't "allude" to anything, I stated the sources in question outright. With respect to Concertzender, they went from being a government-funded station that was broadcast nationally to a private internet station. The fact that their funding was cut suggests that the Dutch government, at least, found their influence to already be niche. It would be different if subject's music was broadcast regularly from major national stations elsewhere, but this isn't the case. Moreover, subject's notability, such as it is, seems to rest on composing music that rides the coattails of other more famous composers and works. Ultimately, I disagree with your opinion, but thank you kindly for your input all the same. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With alluding I meant not the downplaying of specific sources but the more general discussion of the Concertzender. Here repeated. So the Netherlands has seen its government budgets for culture slashed, especially under the First Rutte cabinet and the digital revolution hasn't skipped the Netherlands either. It's not part of my WP:GNG coverage but does speak to the general importance of the composer. As 2-xite mentioned before me, nothing wrong with the Concertzender. And even IF there was, it would not affect the notability per WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful answers. Thank you.
I wish to add another very important quality about the Concertzender. The database of this Broadcast is amazing in its variation and the possibility to listen the recordings on demand even many years after the public releases. There is no public sender I can compare that keeps sharing the music-joy with the audience for so long instead of removing / hiding it after few years. So the amount of the listeners spread over time is really huge and is far from the used term "niche". 2-xite (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I'm glad that you enjoy your music supply! Again, I found the composer to be notable under the WP:GNG, regardless of Concertzender, and the nominator to belittle valid sources from Omroep Brabant and the Volkskrant. It is a fact that the composer appears in the national music dictionary and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO. This baseless nomination is best withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because there were some more important sources added to approve the General Notability Guideline and the importance of the Dutch contemporary music. The orchestral work "Madame en Noir" was the opening-piece of the 25th edition of one of the most outstanding festivals in the Netherlands at that time. It's also striking that the composer has Ukrainian roots (born in Lviv), studied in Russia, but most of the time in the Netherlands and from Dutch Nationality, so additionally to all musical values it may be obvious to vindicate this artist on Wikipedia. 87.110.183.188 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Rough consensus is that the topic is notable (despite the awkward title), and that while the article may have POV issues (at least in the view of many), these are not so severe as to be irremediable through editing. Sandstein 06:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation[edit]

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

The article appears to be an attempt (possibly unintended) to glorify the organization (Ukrainian Insurgent Army or UPA) partly accountable for the Holocaust and fully responsible for the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. One of the leaders (same for the others Roman Shukhevych or Dmytro Klyachkivsky) Stepan Bandera was a Nazi collaborator. This is extremely disturbing. Please refer to this discussions for more --> [29], [30] GizzyCatBella🍁 03:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well written and sourced. Deletion is not the way to deal with neutral point of view concerns....that I am not seeing in this case.Robert Gellately, ed. (16 February 2018). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Third Reich. Oxford University Press. pp. 230–. ISBN 978-0-19-104401-4. OCLC 1023801367.Moxy- 03:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some could be merged to Ukrainian Insurgent Army article. Also please note -->[31] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any sources that contradict the article? Moxy- 03:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute Moxy .. are you saying that WP:NPOV issues are not present in the article? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Few things could be reword it...but it follows the sources there. Again are there other sources that contradictory sources there? Moxy- 03:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay 🙂 .. so point to me please which source was used for this for example --> All conscious Ukrainian patriots were physically killed by Polish militants, killing their wives and children, and the rest of the Ukrainian population was required to declare loyalty and support for the Polish insurgent movement. ... or ... does this source [32] (kokolus.com) is a source that is a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) and meets the Arbitration Committee ruling [33] ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Moxy by the way .. my leaf is nicer. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: the author gives the source for that. I'll translate the source into English for you--> "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army: Historical Essays / National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; Institute of History of Ukraine / SV Kulchytsky (ed.)." - К .: Наук. Historical essays, 2005. - p. 274. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: if you want sources in addition to the one the author already gives, here are two more: "Theory and Practice. Historical representation of the wartime accounts of the activities of OUN-UPA (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Ukrainian Insurgent Army). East European Jewish Affairs. Vol. 36. No.2. December 2006. pp. 163–179." and this "The Difficulties of Polish-Ukrainian Historical Reconciliation," Royal Institute of International Affairs, Kataryna Wolczuk, London, 2002 BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote from the source you presented above part that support this: - All conscious Ukrainian patriots were physically killed by Polish militants, killing their wives and children, and the rest of the Ukrainian population was required to declare loyalty and support for the Polish insurgent movement. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: the author of the article gave you the source, so I translated it for you. Then I gave you an additional source. You can read them at your convenience. Let's get back to your original allegation. Your originally asked for the entire article to be deleted because you allege the article "glorifies" the UPA; yet when I ask you to please site specific passages you think does glorifies UPA, you can't do it. Or at least you haven't yet. I feel that if you're going to request an entire article be deleted; then at the very least you should be able to site passages to support allegations. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you can’t provide the quote, you want me to look for it but you insist that :
All conscious Ukrainian patriots were physically killed by Polish militants, killing their wives and children, and the rest of the Ukrainian population was required to declare loyalty and support for the Polish insurgent movement.
is supported by Historical Essays / National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; Institute of History of Ukraine / SV Kulchytsky (ed.)." - К .: Наук. Historical essays, 2005. - on page 274 and East European Jewish Affairs. Vol. 36. No.2. December 2006. pp. 163 –179." and "The Difficulties of Polish-Ukrainian Historical Reconciliation," Royal Institute of International Affairs, Kataryna Wolczuk, London, 2002 Confirm please - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: the author, @Moxy: and I all gave you sources so you can read them. The whole idea of giving people (you) sources is so people (you) read them. Now you have them, read them. Read & learning is fun. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I share your concern about the article's tone regarding the UPA, I would like to say that I think it's beneficial to have an article on the Ukrainian Insurgency like we do with the Guerrilla war in the Baltic states for example. I would like to keep the article if we can get rid of the nationalist bias. However if that isn't feasible I think we should merge the quality content into the UPA's/relevant articles. But reading the article, most of the problem seems to be with tone and not with the information itself. I think it can be fine with tweaks. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the article needs a lot of work to meet WP:NPOV if to be kept. Must include implementation of sources that actually fulfill the Arbitration Committee mandate from May last year. The white-washing of Ukrainian Insurgent Army crimes and Bandera collaboration with the Nazis by delivering them to our readers as national “heroes” of Ukraine is unacceptable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is very well sourced, is written in a neutral tone, and uses wiki voice. I've read the article several times and I feel it does not "glorify" the UPA or any other group that participated in the genocide of the Holocaust. So I ask that @GizzyCatBella: please tell specifically what part he/she thinks does glorify UPA. Thank you BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Entire article - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella:, if you're going to allege that the article "glorifies" the UPA or any other group that participated in genocide as your reason to have it deleted; then please site specific passages to support your allegation. Thank you BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, how about we start from the very end of the article BetsyRMadison. Here 🙂:
    ...Bandera (its about Stepan Bandera) remained an integral nationalist for the rest of his life.
    Do you see anything wrong with this unsourced statement? Here is the link that explains what Integral nationalism is. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: Stephen Bandera did hold to the principles of "integral nationalism" until he was murdered by Russia's KGB. So no, I do not see anything wrong with that. Do you need me to give you more sources than what the author of the article already gave you to confirm that for you? BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please, I would like to see a reliable source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) that Stepan Bandera was a non-racist nationalist. Please do. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: For the record, first off: Ukrainian and other European publishers are reputable, even though you may have never heard of them. And it's not unusual for Ukraine, and other European countries, to have written more about their own country's history than what you would find in North American books and schools. Secondly, what Bandera described as "integral nationalism" isn't about 'non-racist nationalism' so I have no idea where you got that from? Thirdly, here are more sources than what the author of the article provide that acknowledge Bandera held to the principles of "integral nationalism" until he was murdered by Russia's KGB: "Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist" by Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe: ‎ Ibidem Press (October 1, 2014). and this "Heroes and Villains"
    By David R. Marples; Central European University Press (August 10, 2007). Let me know if you want more sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Russia and Eurasia 2019-2020. Rowman & Littlefield. 11 October 2019. pp. 185–. ISBN 978-1-4758-5248-6. Moxy- 05:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please quote from the sources you presented above part that supports:
    Stepan Bandera remained an integral nationalist for the rest of his life. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: The author gave you once source, I gave you two sources, and @Moxy: gave you one source. That's a total of 4 source for you to read at your convenience. And while you're reading all 4 sources, remember learning and reading is fun! BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)"His life's goal was to create an independent Ukraine from the Ukrainian parts of eastern Poland and Soviet Ukraine. He was willing to collaborate with whoever would help him achieve that end." Moxy- 05:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does above support: Stepan Bandera remained an integral nationalist for the rest of his life ? 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: It's becoming evident that you don't know what "Ukrainian integral nationalism" is. If you read the sources the author gave you, I gave you, & Moxy gave you; you'll learn what it is. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t ? 🙂 - Anyway don’t answer, this is off topic already - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / merge; merge whatever is salvageable into Ukrainian Insurgent Army, but delete rather than leaving a redirect, since this isn't a useful title. This is a textbook WP:POVFORK, being a straight duplicate of the history of the organization in that article, but written from a premise that essentially reflects the organization's own view of events; no neutral article could reasonably be written under this title. Renaming / rewriting it into a general article on Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union is unreasonable and not possible when everything in it is about the UPA, so the only thing to do is to merge and delete. Even framing it as a war is WP:POV in this context, since that is not how it is treated in most high-quality sources. Also, I should add that I strenuously disagree with the argument that this article is well-sourced - it cites the same few sources over and over again, almost all of them Ukrainian; there is nothing wrong with citing a bunch of sources from close to the fact, but for the article's sources to one-sided to the point of near exclusion of any other perspective is giving WP:UNDUE weight to one view and reinforces the fact that this is a POVFORK of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Some people above suggest that it could be fixed, but we already have a balanced, well-written, well-sourced article on the UPA. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union might be a more fitting title if the article was thoroughly re-written to meet WP:NPOV - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: Since 1917, there has been "Ukrainian resistance against the Soviet Union." Therefore, because the article is about UPA from 1944-1956, your suggested title would not be more fitting. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy. I don’t understand .. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: You keep avoiding instead of answering my question. Now please answer: Why do you say the Russian Republic "was exceptionally well and dandy" between 1944-1956 when they brutally occupied east Berlin and much of eastern Europe. Please answer. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I said the Soviet Union was well and dandy in 1944-1956. (This is off topic, see collapsed section below) Now please stop asking off topic questions, you can use my talk page for that if you want. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: It's your topic for your suggested new title, so it can't be off-topic. Please tell me why you say the "Soviet Union was exceptionally well and dandy in 1944-1956" when they brutally occupied east Berlin and much of eastern Europe. Please answer. I'd really like to know why you think that. Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this is becoming disruptive. Full stop now. Use my talk page please for off topic exchanges - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
off topic
  • Yes, in 1944-1956 the Russian Empire Republic existed. Between 1944-1956 the authoritarian Russian Republic brutally occupied East Berlin, Ukraine, Hungary, etc., So I don't know where you get the idea that the Russian empire Republic "was exceptionally well and dandy" between 1944-1956. Seriously, where'd you get that idea? BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (?) 1944 -1956 Russian Empire existed? Sorry, what on earth.... anyway ... I think I’ll pause here... - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: You did not answer my question, tell me why you think Russian Republic "was exceptionally well and dandy" between 1944-1956 when they brutally occupied east Berlin and parts of eastern Europe? Oh, sorry for writing "Russian empire" instead of "Russian Republic." They're both very brutal & genocidal regimes so I apologize for causing you confusion on that.
Now please answer my question. Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Republic between 1944-1956 now...eh? Sorry BetsyRMadison but I’m choosing to pause this exchange for obvious (to me) reasons. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Yes, the Russian Republic. Read & learn about it here [34]The longer version is: Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Now please answer my question: Why do you say Russian Republic "was exceptionally well and dandy" between 1944-1956 when they brutally occupied east Berlin and parts of eastern Europe? You said it, so please explain why you think that. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison - I might get back to you later. Please don’t get discouraged by those errors, we all learn all the time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Thank you, because I do look forward to reading your answer on why you feel that between 1944-1956 the authoritarian Russian Republic, who brutally occupied East Berlin, Ukraine, Hungary, etc., "was exceptionally well and dandy." And I also look forward to you citing the specific passages of the article you allege glorifies UPA. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So now it was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic that occupied East Berlin etc.., not the entire Soviet Union? Just that one particular Soviet Republic? BetsyRMadison stop, please... - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Between 1944-1956, Russia was not an independent state, it was part of the Soviet Union along with Ukraine and many other Soviet Socialist Republics. Joseph Stalin, who was Georgian and not Russian, was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953 and Nikita Khrushchev, who was Russian lead the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964. If we were to take the logic that the Soviet Union was Russia by another name, then we would have to take the logic that the United Kingdom was England by another name and I'm not sure how the Scots, Welch, and Northern Irish would view been known as English rather than British, but I bet they wouldn't like it. Just Like I am pretty sure the Armenians, Byelorussians, Estonians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Latvians, Lithuanians, Moldavians, Tajiks, Turkmen, Ukrainians, and Uzbeks would not be keen to be known as Russian. Lets do our research before publishing a comment and lets leave the emotion of current events from ruling our heads. Kind regards 79.155.36.178 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hopeless POV issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree that there are POV issues, but the topic seems potentially notable (reliable academic source that should be used in the article: Examining the authoritarian model of counter-insurgency: The Soviet campaign against the Ukrainian insurgent army. I see there been attempts to NPOV the article, and they are ongoing. I am not sure this article is beyond saving and hence, I am not convinced WP:TNT applies. I do support tagging the article with {{NPOV}} and making it neutral, of course. The name is clunly and can be changed, I see there is a RM on article's talk page alraedy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree Piotrus, I believe this one might have hopeless POV issues as Ymblanter above noted. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that the topic is notable, but I haven't studied the article sufficiently to know whether WP:TNT should be applied or not. In either case, my second preference after the week keep&rewrite is to merge&redirect. (Oh, and I fully agree this was a struggle against USSR, not just Russia). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & merge There is a lot of emotion flying around here and people need to keep calm heads. Remember what the purpose of this project is. According to Jimmy Whales Wikipedia is "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".[[35]] This article falls way short and is mired in multiple failures as specified by many editors above. The article should be deleted, with what can be saved, merged into other associated articles.79.155.36.178 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is a travesty. It begins with the title and the first paragraph, which erroneously claim that Ukraine was under Russian occcupation during the 1930s-40s. The Ukrainian SSR and the Russian SFSR were part of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is not synonymous with Russia, and the Soviet Union did not "occupy" Ukraine in the 1930s-40s. It was the government. Then, there's the fact that the article repeatedly refers to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) as the "liberation movement". For those who are unaware, the UPA collaborated with the Nazis, had its own fascist ideology, wanted to create an ethnically pure state, and attempted to carry out a genocide against Jews and Poles in western Ukraine. It's more than just a bit problematic to call them a "liberation movement" in Wikivoice. Guess what's not mentioned anywhere in this article? The words "Holocaust" or "Jew". This article just completely sweeps the UPA's complicity in the Holocaust under the rug. The article is entirely framed as a work of apologia for the UPA. If there's any content worth saving in this article, it can be merged into Ukrainian Insurgent Army. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree - Perhaps editors unfamiliar with the subject might want to read this recent article also - [36] - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kuromiya, Hiroaki (1994). "Ukraine and Russia in the 1930s". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 18 (3/4). [President and Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute]: 327–341. ISSN 0363-5570. JSTOR 41036906. Retrieved 2022-04-27. Moxy- 16:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thucydides411: You're mistaken, Ukraine was under Russian occupation in 1930s-40s. Historian Timothy Snyder writes Ukraine was under Soviet occupation during the 1930s-40s [37], [38] In fact, from 1917-1991 Ukraine fought against Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic occupation troops (Russian occupation troops) to gain independence from Russian occupation. Speaking of 1930s,
    *From 1932-33, the Russian Republic under Joseph Stalin, waged genocide in Ukraine and killed 4 Million Ukrainians [39], [40], [41].
    *From 1936 and 1938, Stalin executed at least 9,000 Ukrainians who resisted Communism (The Great Purge). [42]
    *"Mass Graves In Ukraine Hold Thousands of Victims of Stalin’s Great Purge" [43].
    *Between 1929-1953, Stalin put nearly 18 million people in forced prison labor camps, Gulags, where many died of starvation and disease.
    *From 1933-1941, Stalin and Hitler were allies. Stalin collaborated with Hitler from 1933-1941.
    *In 1939, Stalin helped Hitler invade Poland to kill Jews. Stalin captured, tortured nearly 250,000 western Ukrainians and Poles when Stalin helped Hilter invade Poland in 1939. Stalin executed around 100,000 of them and sent the rest to Stalin's Gulag [44].
    *UPA, OUN, UVV etc., are described as Ukrainian liberation movement in wiki articles & in wiki sources [45] [46], while others describe them as Ukrainian independence movement. Since you're passionate about including their role in the Holocaust, then add it to the article. That'd be an easy, simple solution to elevate your concerns. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really want to get into a protracted argument with you, because it's clear you hold historical views that are very far from the mainstream and I don't think we'd get far, but I just want to point out that your interpretation of the passage from Snyder's book is incorrect. In that passage, he writes, "In 1939, when the Soviet Union occupied what became Western Ukraine, ..." This is a reference to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland in 1939, after the German invasion. Lviv was part of Poland at the time, but would later become part of Ukraine. In this passage, Snyder is not calling Ukraine as a whole an "occupied territory" or anything similar. It's simply a reference to the occupation of Polish territories by the Soviet Union in 1939.
    You don't have to persuade me that Stalin was a bad guy. I just don't like seeing bad history on Wikipedia, and this article really takes the cake. Whatever your beliefs, you know that the claim that Soviet Ukraine was under "Russian Occupation" from 1922-91 is not mainstream, and that it's extremely contentious to call a fascist militia that helped perpetrate the Holocaust a "liberation movement". These sorts of claims simply cannot be made in Wikivoice, and any article that's framed from the viewpoint that these claims are correct is fatally flawed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave you sources that support my comments. Contentious to you, or not, the sources I gave you confirm scholars, historians, wikipedia, and wiki sources describe UPA, UVV, & OUN as Ukrainian liberation movement and/or Ukrainian independence movement. And you not liking those historical descriptions, doesn't make the descriptions any less true. And in order to adhere to WP:NPOV, the source's descriptions are the descriptions we have to use in wiki articles.
    Sources also confirm that since 1917-1991 Ukraine nationalists have been fighting like hell to be rid of Russian occupation [47], [48]. So your allegation that from 1922-1991 (and including the 1930s-40s), while Stalin's forces occupied eastern Ukraine as Stalin waged genocide & murdered 8 Million Ukrainians somehow signifies that Ukraine were happy, willing members of the Soviet Social Republics is also not true, not supported by fact, and not supported by sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BetsyRMadison - I would encourage you to study the Manipulation of the historical memory section in this article. -->
    [49] and the issue of whitewashing Ukrainian Insurgent Army describing its legacy as a "heroic Ukrainian resistance against the Nazis and the Communists". This is precisely what this (I hope soon deleted) article is doing and... sadly, seems you do as well. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: that quote you gave is not in the article you want deleted. So please stop going off-topic. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By the way, there is another similar WP:CFORK of Ukrainian Insurgent Army recently created called Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany with identical issues That needs to be addressed next. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the duplicate articles to some sort of title, but AfD is not for addressing NPOV concerns, that's what the edit button is for. casualdejekyll 20:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its odd that not one source has been presented to show there is a problem Moxy- 11:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the WP:POVFORK, per the convincing arguments put forth by Aquillion and Thucydides411. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Poland should be at least a redirect to something... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to give that one anything but a very cursory look. Are the sources that bad? I did see that Volunteer Marek had been through it. Elinruby (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC) -(later) oops, read that page title wrong Elinruby (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update note - The article has been moved to Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance, but this is still wrong because (article has been moved back to the original title GizzyCatBella🍁 21:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)) the article talks exclusively about UPA.Imagine a WP:POVFORK article about 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), Schutzmannschaft Battalion 118, Ukrainian Auxiliary Police or Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 and creating the same WP:POVFORK article titled Ukrainian armed struggle against the Allies (or something like that) glorifying those units. Note that many of Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 members for example, especially the commanding officers such as Roman Shukhevych, would later be recruited into the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Please also note this Ukrainian partisan force fighting in Ukraine at that time - Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army. They shared the same name with Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya," or "UPA"), without merging into one army. They were not the same as UPA Banderites. The history of that region is quite complicated. -->[50] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now...Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Soviet Government Moxy- 06:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
lol, You learn your history from some YouTubers? 🙂 oh well ... no comments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Making it as simple as possible for you ...that said your free to dismiss Ukrainian historians. Still waiting on rebuttal sources of anykind.Moxy- 06:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me? lol, I don’t need "simple" I’m familiar with the history of that region quite well 🙂. But thank you. (oh Gosh 🤦🏻‍♀️) - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really because you have not shown any sources about the period. What is your POV based on? Moxy- 06:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My POV is not based on YouTube videos, that’s for sure. 🙂 and I don’t understand what sources you want me to post. They are here Ukrainian Insurgent Army or here Stepan Bandera and widely available --> GizzyCatBella🍁 06:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted this in the article for research info...start there ..United States Information Agency (1988). "The Ukrainian Insurgent Army in Documents". Problems of Communism. Documentary Studies Section, International Information Administration. p. 3-PA77. ISSN 0032-941X. Moxy- 07:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to start here lol? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy How about you start here [51] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I you think something is missing make a proposal .....all help is welcome. Moxy- 07:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is beyond repair in my opinion. It would have to be entirely re-written, and Moxy, seriously, (no offence) but please read a bit more about the subject. Even in Wikipedia. IDK.... start here Nachtigall Battalion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have provided many sources from academic publications to a entry level video.featuring Ukrainian historians. You have just stated its needs deletion ..... no recommendations for a fix or sources. Done with page.. Moxy- 07:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian historians here are clearly a party of the conflict and can not be considered as independent reliable sources. If the statement only occurs in the works of Ukrainian historians, it is better moved to Propaganda in Ukraine or a similar article. Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't only appear in the works of Ukrainian historians. He gave them the video because for some reason they won't produce an academic source and don't seem to be reading any of the sources in the article or the talk page. The video is produced by the Ukrainian public broadcaster, shrug. There's over a hundred sources to the article, in English, Ukrainian. Russian, Polish, French and German. Elinruby (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How come the article is based almost entirely on non-English sources? M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't finished but somebody won't let the author work on it. Also, it is allowed to be. What's your point?Elinruby (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Allowed" doesn't answer my question, so don't expect me to answer the obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: I can't speak for the author, but the author lives in Ukraine so I am assuming that may be why many of the sources of Polish and Ukrainian. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
explain to me like I am five Elinruby (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expect a 5 year old to understand the simple question and answer it (if they can). M.Bitton (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer it. It isn't finished and the original editor is being told she can't finish it. I added about fifteen English-language souces last night and when I get done answering silly questions here I will add some others, and reformat the Ukrainian ones, many of which are different pages in the same books. I will answer your question too -- you seem to be implying that this is one nationalistic point of view. This is simply not so, as there were sources here in all three of the pertinent languages, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian. They are all RS, including all the new additions to Further Reading I added last night. Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: You keep linking to "wiki" pages. No offence to wikipedia, but wikipedia is not an educational source. And because there are many factual errors in many wiki articles, (due to editors 'voting' on what 'facts' and 'truth' are) wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source for real or accurate history. The several articles and academic publications @Moxy: has given you are reliable sources for real/accurate history. But for some reason you choose reject those reliable sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you need help accessing any just ask.. May have links. Moxy- 07:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m good, thank - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: The funniest part of your comment is that you do rely youtubers as your source of education as evidenced by your edits in "Gonzalo Lira" page & your comments on that talk page. In fact, you insist on quoting "youtubers" (who are known Russian propagandists) within that article and you insist on calling youtubers "journalists" in that article & on that talk page. Oh my, your narrative sure has changed in less than a week. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison if you continue with personal attacks and commenting on editors then IDK...(quote from what you wrote ..you do rely you tubers as your source of education..) You keep skating on thin ice my dear. GizzyCatBella🍁 12:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: My comment is clearly about the "content" you put in articles & talk pages. Discussing "content" is not a personal attack & so you shouldn't take it as such. My comment highlights that you do use youtubers as a source of education for your edits in the "Gonzalo Lira" page & in your comments on that talk page. That's just a fact about your content (not you personally), and anyone can go to that page to see it for themselves. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about different topic - antisoviet resistance in Ukraine. If there is some concern about content - please provide samples of "glorifications" of people responsible for war crimes or correct these parts in the article with link to reliable sources. There is no need in deletion of this page.--Sakateka (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC) (This article is about Ukrainian Insurgent Army that was implicated in the Holocaust in occupied Poland [52] It's leader Stepan Bandera, an antisemite and Nazi collaborator [53] was operational in occupied Poland during World War II (1933–45), including anti Jewish pogroms and is directly related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II. The editor, who is also an author of this article does not meet extended confirmed requirements [54], therefore, may not make edits (see WP:APL50030-->[55] to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs..[56] and to this article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Squabbling about who gets to post here, and not about topic notablity or deletion criteria
@GizzyCatBella: is using a new allegation, "extended confirmed restriction" to: Prohibit the author from editing their article, striking through the author's comment, and silencing the author. A brand new allegation that is no where in GizzyCat's 'deletion request.' On April 26, on the authors talk page GizzyCat wrote, "Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised." Yet today, GizzyCat is restricting the author from doing that. I strongly feel GizzyCat is violating WP:AFDDISCUSS that states "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else." I also strongly feel GizzyCat's brand new allegation to restrict & silence the author is misplaced and does not apply.
I feel GizzyCat should explain why, on April 26, GizzyCat agreed that "extended confirmed restriction" did not apply to the author, but today GizzyCat claims it does. (On a side note: In case no one knows, the author lives in Ukraine -- a war zone, and is being bombed & invaded by Russia -- so the author hasn't had, and still doesn't have, much time to address any of this.) Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakateka: Welcome back! For the record, the person who requested the "deletion" of your article has been asked repeatedly to give specific passages to support their allegation of "glorifications" and, to date, they haven't been able to provide any passages to support their allegation. hmm... On a separate note, @Elinruby: has worked very hard & has done a tremendous job editing your article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: From WP:AFDDISCUSS "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone... " You are wrong to scratch out the author's comment. You are wrong to try to silence them on this page by demanding they be prohibited from defending themselves against allegations you made that you can't even support. I am going to undo-your scratch out based off of WP:AFDDISSCUSS. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed [57] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Please read: WP:PLAYPOLICY. Then read WP:AFDDISCUSS "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone... "
The article is about Ukrainian nationalists fighting for independence between 1944-1956. (WWII ended in 1945, not 1956.) The article is clearly not about "the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II."
Under your theory, the author isn't allowed to publish their own article on wiki. Is that what you're alleging, because the author has edited just shy 500 edits; they have no right to publish their own article?
If your theory is true, then why didn't you put that in your 'deletion request'? hmm.. And if your theory is true, then why didn't you just the delete right away and then say you did it because you feel that the article is about something it isn't about and the author has made 476 edits, not 500. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: I am going to revert your strike-through of the author's on this page and here's why: 1) For an article up for deletion, WP:AFDDISCUSS says "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else. 2) I don't feel that your new allegation, 'extended confirmed restriction,' apply here for reasons I stated above (here [58]
I want you to know that my revert is only about your edit (not you personally). I know you work very hard on wiki, so please, I urge you to not take my edit as anything personal about you, because it's not. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison I’ll report this to AE, please don’t. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: All my edits are done in good faith. I explained my reasoning for undoing your revision 1085265985 where you 'strike' through the comments from the author. If my reasoning is wrong, then, I guess, someone at AE will let me know. But, remember, we all have the same equal right/permission to edit in good faith & that is exactly what I do. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison I’m drafting the report while we speak. If that goes to AE you might be blocked or topic banned. That’s how they will let you know, no other way. I’ll give you a moment to think about it but I can tell you that reinstating comments against the Arbitration rulings is a bad, bad idea. Maybe talk to an administrator you trust about it. (IDK Bishonen can you advise here please if you have time) I'll get back to you later, but if I don't see your self-revert, I think I'll go ahead with the report. Please don't make me do it, I really don't want to. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: I think that's a great idea! Obviously my edits are done in good faith. I've explained my reasoning for the edit that you object to here [59], here [60], and here [61]. Maybe your objection is wrong, maybe my edit is wrong. And since we both edit in good faith, I feel your idea to ask someone like Bishonen is a good one. I'm leaving town, but will check back later. So, until then, best regards to all. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: I just thought of an additional reason as to why I feel your new allegation of " "extended confirmed restriction" does not apply and I ask you to hear me out & consider it. On April 26 on the author's talk page you wrote "Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised." [62] That confirms to me, that on April 26, you agreed the author has no restrictions in editing their article or talk page. And I agree with your April 26 comment. The author was not restricted because "extended confirmed restriction" did not apply on April 26 & still does not apply. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison Talk to admin. you trust. Seriously. (El C do you have time to take a look at the above exchange. They reinstated comment does not meet extended confirmed requirements[63]) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that editor has 16,000+ global edits. Elinruby (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see an article that has a lot of good sourced material, and in some pretty wild moments right now. I see a lot of invalid rationals noted for deletion (basically that the arttticle is in bad shape). I said "keep" just to keep anything random from happenning during this chaotic moment. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the rationale for deletion is not that the article is in a bad shape but because it is a WP:POVFORK - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see an article that has a lot of good sourced material, and in some pretty wild moments right now. I see a lot of invalid rationales noted for deletion (basically that the article is in bad shape). I said "keep" just to keep anything random from happenning during this chaotic moment. I haven't taken the deep dive needed to answer the central question which is the relationship of this article to Ukrainian Insurgent Army which should be the real question, and I don't see much in-depth discussion of that in this heat of the moment. Is this article/it's title a sub-article, a related article with some overlap, just slightly a POV fork, totally a POV fork or what? Perhaps the sides involved should present/argue those aspects more thoroughlly here which may change some "votes" including mine. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator’s rationale doesn’t refer to WP guidelines, but appears to blatantly violate WP:assume good faith—“attempt (possibly unintended)” is self-contradictory—and perhaps seeks to WP:right great wrongs it employs demonizing language about historical figures and then extends it to the very existence of an article about them. While I admittedly haven’t followed the links to examine this in detail, on the surface this nomination is what’s somewhat disturbing. —Michael Z.
You haven't examined the links, but you have chosen to attack the nominator? Am I reading you correctly? (yes I do...) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What links?Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two “please refer to discussions” links in the nomination. —Michael Z. 23:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not written anything about the nominator. —Michael Z. 23:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but completely rewrite The topic itself is notable. The article as is now is complete POV garbage. Volunteer Marek 20:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Volunteer Marek Who is up to a total re-write? (Not me 🙂 thank you very much). But okay, if we decide on a total re-write, then some of the material could be transferred from these already existing UPA sections -->this one [64] this one [65] this one [66] this one [67] and this one [68]. So the lead of the article would be a short illustration of what kind of organization UPA was and then description of their battles against the Soviets in a neutral language bypassing their combat against the Poles, right? We would skip info like --> Karol Świerczewski for example. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You see Volunteer Marek there are matching POV issues in different articles created by the same author, such as Self-defense Kushch Units for example. Those are easier to fix, however, because the article is shorter. Check that one out when you get some time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Volunteer Marek: editor @Elinruby: has been working hard at editing a near-rewrite of the article. The original author lives in Ukraine so hasn't had much time to address any of the issues. But Elinruby has really stepped-up to author out. BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not stepping up for a re-write of the main article on the organization itself, at least until its sourcing problems are addressed. I had to stop looking at it because I didn't want to be accused of tag bombing. But. I have said I will do this one. 1944 was a pivotal year, and this does seem like a valid spin off to me. It isn't possible to omit all mentions of Poland though -- I don't think, don't have the timeline in front of me -- because the organization was active in Poland in 1944. Look, if anybody is POV pushing, I think it's the editor saying that the original editor can't edit her own work or even defend it in response to the concerns raised here that this article about 1944 doesn't cover events in 1941. I can see that some of them are notable and relevant enough to be included in some version of a background section, including Ukraine's declaration of independence and yes, the pogroms, at least the one in Lviv, but I am like three days into this article, and currently just now sourcing in English. I do see the need to include additional events in a background or aftermath section, but these are not the focus of the aticle, and I am getting to these. Repeating over and over again, while refusing to provide any sources, that everything was "dandy" under Stalin and Bandera was an anti-semite is not constructive. And:
  1. NO.
  2. Maybe, not there yet.
Look. Can we agree here that the grade-school level history taught in Russia and Ukraine is quite different? I assume, based on the sources I can read, that Poland has its own equally valid narrative, which is, I gather, something along the lines of the Soviets pushed them around and then gee, along came the Nazis and Ukrainians. I have no intention of suppressing that part of the story, though I think the original editor may not have realized its existence. This is why Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. I think that the grown-up version of this history, as described by Snyder et al, retells the narratives pretty well, without demonizing or glorifying anybody. The article has sources in five languages including Polish and Russian. If any others should be included, LMK. I have taken note of one very good suggestion, though it isn't in the article yet. I am willing to accept specific constructive feedback about any of them or anything in the article. But this AfD is an enormous waste of everyone's time, including GizzyCatBella's, which would be better spent sourcing the main article about the organization.Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: Well said! BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hadn't voted yet because I have been assessing the article and its sources. Those who are complaining about scope are simply hoist on their own petard. Don't start a request for move then complain about the results. Note that I didn't vote on that request, because *I didn't care* what the scope was and was willing to accept whateer the consensis might be. I was more concerned with whether the existing article was well enough sourced to build in the other national narratives. I have concluded that it is, and I will do it. This is the kind of assessment of a translation that I have been doing for years. Anyone who doubts whether I can do this should check my edit history and in particular the editor of the week award for Operation Car Wash. I am in this because I don't like it when editors tell other editors that their country isn't entitled to a history. I am not, by citizenship or ethnicity, either Russian, Ukrainian or Polish. I have a childhood friend whose grandparents were Romanian. Another childhood friend's parents were Hungarian Jewish refugees. My neighbor is ethnically Polish. That is the extent of my personal stake in this history. It really annoys me to have to spell all this out. I have no objection to the NPOV banner staying up for the near future. Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge to Ukrainian Insurgent Army per Aquillon. This is a POV pushing content fork. The lead of the article fails to mention the insurgent army's partipation in the Holocaust against the Jews, the brutal massacres and ethnic cleansing of Polish civilians, mostly women and children of Poles in Eastern Galicia and Volhynia, or the army's original political goal of creating a pure Ukrainian ethnostate closely allied with Nazi Germany. The editors who advocate keeping this POV fork have had several days to correct the glaring POV pushing in the lead, but have not done do. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: that's me you are talking about. The article title was changed in an RfM two days ago, to "ant-Soviet resistance", which was in 1944. It's now been changed back, presumably because the nom didn't like the results of their own RfM, but the scope of the article is now different, so don't go by that. The collaboration would have been in 1941, as was the Lviv pogrom. The nom keeps citing wikioedia pages and YouTube videos to prove that the leader was an anti-semite, but I can't just import the writing from the main article, which is a poorly sourced mess. The citation for Banders's antsemitism is a book review. I have never hearf of the source for the Ukrainian Insurgent Army's participation in the Lviv but if it is good or a good source can be found, yes, it definitely should be mentioned. I agree. But how exactly? The nom's own sources don't support Bandera's personal participation, and he was pretty busy that day declaring the independence of Ukraine. That is why it hasn't been added yet, and now that it looks like the sourcing needs to be redone to include this as more than a mention in the background of 1944, the nominator has moved on in their rationale for deletion, and is now claiming that the article doesn't have any reliable sources, and won't, just won't, either cite some specific problems or provide a decent source for their own contentions. Please help. A moratorium on page moves would be a fantastic start, because the antics at this AfD just sucked up two days of my life researching something that is no longer the article's topic. Yes I am tired and exasperated Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...or this section --> [69] UPA in Poland. Not a single word about UPA's massacres of Poles for what they are the most famous for or not a word about their participation in the Holocaust. This article is a pile of complete rubbish, as VM says.
PS - Perhaps it could be rescued, but so far, I see no improvement in addressing the serious issues despite heavy editing performed primarily by one editor. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: It is true that the UPA massacre in Poland isn't mentioned in the article yet. But you know, there is an "edit button" that can remedy that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe the article should be deleted for the reasons explained multiple times. If it is decided to keep it, then I’ll work on the article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: your "deletion request" only gives one allegation: "glorify the organization" and nothing else, no other allegations, just that one. And about that, editors have repeatedly asked you to give specific passages to support your allegation, and you still haven't been able to give any. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you shouldn't be telling me what I am capable of doing. The heavy editing has so far consisted of clarifying the language and familiarizing myself with the souces cited and the additional sources that should perhaps also be used. I have already said that IF ONLY YOU WILL PROVIDE A SOURCE anything that needs to be added can be added. But you *are* aware that you are complaaining that an article that until this morning was about 1944 isn't talking about 1941? That was when the Germans were in the area. The Soviets came back in 1944. And I have spent the intervening time trying to coax you to tell me exactly why you think the article lacks reliable sources? Now that you have unilaterally moved the article, yes, 1941 needs to be expanded, I guess. It's sort of a three degrees of Russian occupation, but there are theories that what they did in Poland had something to do with enlisting the Germans to help them with the Russians, vs. "anti-Soviet", which it wasn't really. I am also confused about this unilateral scope change. If the RfM should not have been closed, where is it? Because now I do want to comment, now that I have put in a bunch of work on a different article scope. Elinruby (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh this is a textbook definition of a POV fork: To cut off the period before 1944 and to claim that these Holocaust perpetrators have no relation to the Holocaust, because all the jews have been murdeded by that time. Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting really tired of people putting words in my mouth. I am not claiming anythng of the kind. lease stop and re-read the above thread if you think I am. But the events of 1941 are not the events of 1944. In 1941 they were apparently working with Nazis and declaring an independent country. In 41-43 Bandera was in a concentration camp and a guy who apparenty WAS anti-semitic was running things. In 44 Bandera was out and the Soviets were back. In 45 they were getting massacred in Poland. If we need a spinoff article about 41, somebody should write one. Killing Poles and Jews in 1941 is not an "anti-Soviet" activity that took place in 1944. It is related to what happened in 1945. But that is not the set of events the is article is about. I tell you what. I will change my vote to merge if I am left alone for a couple of days to do it myself, and source it with something something respectable. Best and final offer. Otherwise we can let GizzyCat just continue denying that there was anything wrong with belonging to Stalin's Soviet Union, and we may as well write off Wikipedia as a source of actual information. And the Foundation wonders why we lose editors. That Ukrainian translator is never coming back and I am back to thinking I shoul probably go do some paid work where nobody impugns my motives. Elinruby (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section in your article titles "UPA from 1941 to 1943" you didn't mention anything about all the atrocities comitted by UPA in that time period. Killing Poles and Jews in 1941 is not an "anti-Soviet" activity that took place in 1944. Genocide of Polish happened in years 1943-1945 yet you didn't mention anything about it Marcelus (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be added ...anyone have a good propsal? Moxy- 15:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If true I agree; I got sidetracked dealing with the denial of the Holomodor that was one of the original rationales for deletion -- that the Ukrainians were a hapy part of the Soviet Union and of course there was no occupation or resistance to the occupation Your assisance is welcome fleshing out the period, @Marcelus: By the way, I am not the author of the original article. I am just in this because I don't like seeing history suppressed, and the original author needs to make about 150 more edits to English wikipedia before she is allowed to post here apparently Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "150 more edits" that seems to be up for debate, I guess. What I mean is, as of May 2020, the rule itself doesn't mention English edits or any language. [70], it says "500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II..." The rule doesn't say "English edits" or any particular language, it says "All IP" editors.." And here [71] the rule says, "Articles under extended confirmed protection (ECP) can be edited only by extended-confirmed accounts – accounts that have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits." Again, doesn't mention language. And here, [72] the rule says "A registered editor becomes extended confirmed automatically when the account has both existed for at least 30 days and made over 500 edits." Doesn't distinguish language; although the rule does go on to say English users have additional benefits and can "use the Content Translation tool and the INDEX template on user pages." But that's it. The author here, has made over 19,300 total edits and if the rule mandates English edits only, then the rule should say it, but it doesn't. No where that I can find anyway. I feel this "English edit" only question needs to be answered by someone who can point to the rule where it says it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: You are still confusing en.wp with other projects. The arbitration cases on the English Wikipedia are irrelevant to other projects, and vice versa. The same goes for all the policies and guidelines. M.Bitton (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: I'm not taking about arbitration cases, I'm talking about the rule itself. The rule itself doesn't mention "English edits" [73] the rule says "A registered editor becomes extended confirmed automatically when the account has both existed for at least 30 days and made over 500 edits." and here [74] the rule says, "Articles under extended confirmed protection (ECP) can be edited only by extended-confirmed accounts – accounts that have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits.". If the rule mandates English edits only, then the rule should say it, but it doesn't. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed is a technical status. It is assigned by Mediawiki. It is assigned on the English Wikipedia after an account has made 500 edits and has been registered for 30 days on the English Wikipedia, irrespectively of what the account was doing at other Wikimedia project. The edits on the English Wikipedoa can be in any language, although if the account posts here in some other language more often than in English it will probably be indeffed before it makes it to an etxended confirmed. This was for your information. Now, if you believe that, despite this information, the decisions of the Arbitration Committee refer to 500 edits total across all Wikimedia projects, you should ask the Arbitration Committee for clarification, though I am absolutely certain what the answer would be. Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby Okay pal, you wrote --> I got sidetracked dealing with the denial of the Holomodor that was one of the original rationales for deletion [75].Which diff are you talking about? Who was denying the Holodomor here? Post the diff you are referring to below now please - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, would you *please please respect talk page etiquette*. I had to do a page find to find this demand, and it separates a comment of mine from the comment it is replying to. In answer to your rude demand
  1. please don't call me pal. People who deny genocide are not my pal.
  2. I already gave you that diff once in this AfD. Why is it my job to keep track of this for you? I am still trying to recover from you saying (since apparently you can't remember????) "So let me address your inquiry BetsyRMadison about why I spoke (joking of course) that the Soviet Union was "well and dandy" from 1944 to 1956. So...they just pushed the Germans west after the Stalingrad and with the collapse of Nazi Germany, became a "dandy" super-power. They soon developed a nuclear weapon and shortly after, in 1961, dispatched Gagarin into space, so he could look and smile from far above at the huge territory the Soviet Union acquired. Does this answer your question? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)"
  1. It's *still* on my talk page. You can remove it and apologize for putting it there anytime you like. And please don't tell me not to talk to you and then demand that I do. SMH. As noted elsewhere, I am not your bitch.
  2. And this was in response to BetsyRMadison speaking to you (somewhere else) about saying ""1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy." And you followed her to my talk page and decided that my talk page was the place to be even more offensive. Since you are demanding that I remind you of this dispute that you brought to my talk page for some reason, I am adding her reply for context:
@GizzyCatBella: I didn't ping you, because I didn't invite you to this conversation. It's that simple. But since you're following me on wiki, your exact quote is "1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy." This isn't the first time I've seen you try wiggle out of something you did say. But that's beside the point. It's apparent you don't know what the "Soviet Union" was. The Soviet Union was not one country (as you seem to think) it was a forced conglomerate of 15 countries (Republics): USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (notice the 's' at the end, plural). The Russian Republic brutally ruled all of the other Republics even though they all wanted their independence & didn't want to be in the "SSRepublics" (plural). The Russian Republic brutally controlled them all under a 1-party rule out of Moscow. Example: In 1930s Russian Republic waged genocide in Ukraine and killed almost 4 million Ukrainians.
Ukrainian nationalists didn't set out to kill Jews pre-1941, but I'll tell you who did: Russian Republic leader Joseph Stalin.
From 1933-1941 Stalin & Hitler were allies. In 1939 Stalin & Hitler invaded Poland to kill Jews. At that time, Ukraine nationalists weren't killing Jews, Russia's Joseph Stalin was killing Jews along side Hitler (Stalin, the guy you say led an "exceptionally well and dandy" country.)
In 1941 Hitler invaded Stalin's Ukraine and told Ukraine nationalists that if they fought with the Germans, they'd give Ukraine independence they'd been fighting Russia for since 1917.
  • You said you want to delete the article because you feel the article "glorifies" UPA, but you can't (or won't) cite any passages to support your allegations.
  • Then you switched to complaining about sources. The author, Moxy, & I gave you sources; you won't read the sources. I even translated a source for you and you still won't read it.
  • Then you suggested to change the title to "Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union" and I explained since Ukraine resistance has been fighting Russian Republic for their independence since 1917, and the article only covers 1944-1956, your title isn't fitting.
  • That's when you said, "1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy." And now you're here pretending you didn't say what you did say."
  • Here's the real kicker to your praise of Russia's Stalin - Stalin, the guy who for decades waged genocide on Ukrainians, Jews, etc - The author of the article is from Ukraine. And right now, while you sit here and praise Russia, inside the author's country, Russia is waging a genocidal invasion in Ukraine, kidnapping & raping Ukrainians, and destroying Ukrainian cities. While the author is dealing with all that, you accuse the author of "glorifying" UPA and you can't even cite a single passage to support your claim. Now that is sad. BetsyRMadison (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)}}
I will note that she left out your original rationale for deleting the article, that it was "anti-Soviet" Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (see above[76]) -->@Elinruby You falsely accused me of denying the Holodomor citing my comments that does not even mention Holodomor at all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
look, it's ok to admit you didn't know something. It becomes annoying when you won't look it up. Things were not dandy, ok? the joke, if that is what it was, was beyond inappropriate. I am goimg to sleep now. I wish Wikipedia had an ignore button. HMMM. Checking Beta Elinruby (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: Didn’t know what? You accused me of being a genocide denier without evidence [77]. I'm unable to ignore what appears to be a serious WP:NPA. Point where am I talking about the genocide or Holodomor or strike that false accusations please. Note recent logged warning in EE [78] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation you began is off-topic for this Talk page. I realize it's a fluid conversation, but it's off-topic. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: no don't do that ;) getting ahold of her and explaining to her that she just needs to make 150 more edits on en.wiki is a much better idea; I don't think that has been explained to her, because Gizzy has just been striking her comments along with a cryptic link. Elinruby (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there is much to salvage in the current form. The article is clearly translated word by word from the Ukrainian Wikipedia, and is exteremly one-sided. To give some examples. In the 2nd paragraph it confuses Bandera's UPA with Taras Borovets UPA, which are two different organisation, the latter was formed earlier and hijacked by Bandera. Very short chapter "UPA from 1941 to 1943" doesn't mention anything about genocides comitted by UPA and its members in that time-span. There is nothing about collaboration with Nazi Germany. The only ethnic cleansing mentioned is the one comitted by Polish National Armed Forces in Verkhovyna on Ukrainians. When Vasyl Sidor is introduced there is not mention that he is directly responsible for the death of 20-70 thousands Polish people in Galicia and forced expulsion of 400 thousands. The articles is simply nationalist propaganda. Saying that I think there is a place for the article about Ukrainian armed resistance against Soviet occupation Marcelus (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What confuses do you mean? There is explanation about 2 UPAs in Background section. Sakateka (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Enforcing WP:APL50030 [79] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: The differentiation between the 2 UPA groups are in the "Background" section. Knowing, that, do you still think the 2nd paragraph in the lede should elaborate on that as well? Also I will adding that that UPA collaborated with the Nazis & waged genocide in that time period. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: Do you really asking? Borovets UPA has nothing in common with Banderist UPA except the name. The intro confuses both groups by suggesting that the UPA's anti-Soviet struggle began as early as 1941, when it did not even exist yet.Marcelus (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Yes, I do agree with you, it is confusing and I've been working on that issue, off-line, since I posted to you earlier. But, I keep getting interrupted by my beautiful children. Lol. I didn't want to edit that in drips & drabs. So I'll keep working on it off-line and post it to the article when I'm done. By the way, thanks for your input, it's very helpful in improving the article. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read that link, GizzyCatBella. In particular it says

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) "...Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized bny the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not only should you, as an involved editor, and a non-administrator, not be enforcing this decision, you definitely should not be misrepresenting it. Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby (I’m really getting tired of this). You skipped this part --> "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." [81]GizzyCatBella🍁 02:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: I've been wondering about too. I wasn't aware that wiki allowed the non-Admin editor who initiated this AFD to unilaterally enforce those types of decisions against the editor they've placed the AFD on. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The decision says admins. Elinruby (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella You're missing the big important point here. You are not an admin. Even if you *were* an admin, you are *definitely* INVOLVED. You should not be "enforcing" this decision. And if you are tired of drama, you could always stop creating it. You, yes, you, are the author of this pointless AfD. If you want me I will be improving the article Elinruby (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Get clarification from ArbCom, this is how this ruling is enforced everywhere else. PS - and stop pinging me to this article, please. I’m not interested in participation (for now). - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to fix a damn article. I don't recall pinging you recently, but I will be more than happy to refrain going forward Elinruby (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think everyone should get some air and catch perspective. Ukrainian-Soviet topics, especially now, are sensitive. I think I can say that everyone agrees that an article on the struggle of the Ukrainian underground against the Soviets in 1941/44-1960 deserves an article. After all, we are talking about a conflict that claimed about 150,000 lives on the Ukrainian side and about 30,000 on the Soviet side. However, there is no denying that the article in its current form is unacceptable. First of all, we are dealing with a machine translation. And already this causes a lot of problems. I looked through the Polish section, because I have the greatest knowledge in this subject (by the way, why the UPA's fight against the Polish communist army is placed here, if the article is devoted to the fight against the Soviets?) and there are a lot of basic errors, such as the translation of Zakerzonia (uk. Закерзоння) to Transcarpathia, or the translation of the name of the UPA military region "Sjan" (uk. Сян) to Xiang. This is unacceptable. There are also factual errors and omissions. The article mentions the crimes committed by the Polish communist army and the anti-communist underground against Ukrainians, but says nothing about the UPA's crimes. The UPA's last major genocidal anti-Polish action took place around Ternopil in early 1945. There is not a word about it. As well as about the attacks and burning of Polish villages in Zakerzonia even in 1946 (in most cases without civilian casualties), or the shooting of prisoners of war. But even focusing on the military side there is no mention of the most important battles and the course of the fighting in general. This is just a bad article badly translated.Marcelus (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like that never happens on wikipedia ;) So I want to fix it. This is what I do. Your edits earlier today, cited above, were quite helpful, and if you are moved to make more, please do ;)
  • Comment This is largely about an anti-Soviet insurgency in Ukraine. I am not sure that it adds much to Ukrainian Insurgent Army: Merge(?), but the target is already fairly full length and this is not a likely search term, so that a redirect would not be useful. Another option might be to split between the events of 1944-5 and the subsequent events involving the suppression of a small movement. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that such specific approaches could arise out of this AFD. I think that the impplicit premise of my "keep" was to be able to then move on to a phase of deciding what to do next. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
my best assessment of the situation: I am currently sourcing what is here and compiling sources. A couple of Polish speakers are answering language questions. I just want to be certain that if I start writing to a certain scope, the page won't get get moved while I am doing it. The article, as written, is about 1944 onwards, as Peterkingiron has noticed. However, there appear to be vehement opinions that not including an extensive discussion of collaboration prior to that is somehow whitewashing Nazis. I have added a paragraph about this to the background section, which is where this belongs if we are talking about 1944. I think this subtopic needs to be developed further, but the topic of the article has already changed twice, so it's pretty hard to sensibly weigh DUE WEIGHT. I am ok with the position that the Ukrainians were always resisting the Soviets, but have been instructed that this is just silly because there wasn't a war about this and the Ukrainians were very very happy starving to death and being deported to Siberia. None of the people with this concept of the history are editing the article, mind you.
The people who say it lacks events in Polish history that should be in the Background and 1942-1943 sections seem to have a better point, and one of them is at least being civil, but I still want to know what the topic is. If it is anti-Soviet resistance then that was 1944, and the pogroms and the declaration of the independence of Ukraine should be summarized. If it is "war against Russian occupation", well, that is not the topic I researched, but according to the Ukrainians that starts somewhere around the Bolshevik revolt in Kviv, which was somewhere around 1919.
I did not write this article btw. I rescue machine translations and turn them into decent articles, and this one caught my attention. It would be nice if somebody could explain to the author why her comments are being struck. That part of the problem could be fixed in a day or two, if she knew that she just needs to make 150 more edits to english wikipedia, and if that happened she could clear up some questions. As far as the wikiproceedings go: Nobody has yet found an unreliable source, although a ridiculous claim has been made about the Kyiv Post, the terrible formatting is not yet completely remedied, and some abbreviations remain mysterious. Translating reference format is a lot of work; the people yelling here don't realize. The NPOV case is abandoned, and this AfD is going nowhere. Two other people are willing to help, but spaghetti keeps being thrown at the wall in this AfD. Your proposal sounds fine to me. Or, I could expand back to 1919. And btw the main article needs a rewrite. I have offered to merge this into it but apparently the only acceptable solution is to delete the article, because there is no such thing as Ukrainian history, because they are all Nazis. Sound familiar?
Meanwhile, I co-wrote Liberation of France and nobody was saying let's not include the Petain regime because they helped the Nazis. Yeah they did, and it is in there, absolutely it is in there, and so is the mafia in Marseille and the collaborators and the women who slept with Germans to get food. By the way, I would like to thank North8000 for the keep, which was a ray of sunshine in all the drama here. We can write whatever, whenever some decision is reached by somebody. I have voted on the new RfM, and so has the primary editor helping with Polish. On the other side, lol, but I think he also just wants all the shouting to be over. Protecting the page from any more moves except by admins was a start. But what is the article topic if it must be re-written? There aer a couple of days worth of work before we really need to know, and as you can probably tell, I need a break from it right now, but that is the question. There actually are people here trying to produce an article, though, although I realize it is hard to tell. (by Elinruby)
I don't plan to take the deep dive on the topic needed to do real editing on the article, but I'd be happy to hang around and support research-based efforts to wikify and improve the article or decide on other options for the article. North8000 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. The listings in "Further reading" are proposed sources, is the only thing I can think of that isn't competely usual. I have done some tagging, and wikifying, feel free to review. Overlinking and undertagging are possible. Wikignoming -- references? Some of them are in multiple languages though. Basically, any help you feel like putting into this is extremely welcome. I would say that a question on the talk page might be answered. Peace out. I have wound down a bit and really am going now. Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, the problem with your comparison with content about Vichy France is that the topic area you mention is not subject to discretionary sanctions, but Eastern Europe is. That is because there is a very long history of highly disruptive editing in the Eastern Europe topic area, but not with regards to Western Europe including the history of France. When an article concerns events that took place 70 to 90 years ago, and the topic area is under discretionary sanctions, then the references used should be the highest quality academic quality sources. Those would include books by recognized scholars in the field published by university or academic presses, or articles by recognized scholars in reliable, peer-reviewed academic journals of Eastern European history. Daily newspapers of even the best quality do not qualify in these narrow cases, though they are useful for current events. Nobody is arguing to exclude anything comparable to the Petain regime. Instead, the point is thst we should not have a content fork that serves to whitewash the full and complete history of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army by zeroing in on one phase of its existence, and consisting at least in part of non-neutral praise of the group. Any neutral, properly referenced content from this article should be merged into the main article, and this content fork should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point, sir, is that I am not whitewashing a thing and nobody, especially me, is disputing that discretionary sanctions may apply if the Holocaust is mentioned in passing as a prelude to 1944 or more fully if it turns out trhat the topic of the article is Ukraininan history back to 1919. Merely that is would be nice if some consensus should be found here. But there are at least four narratives here, all of which should be appropriately represented. I am also uncertain where you are getting the idea that I have an issue with high-quality sources ;( I thought you knew me better than that. I am this very moment talking to the person who tagged this article for sources, and he doesn't remember doing it and said what rs tag. So. Please. Apparently you were not aware that I sometimes rescue machine translation, and that is why I am here. I am very tired and have been accused of this and that for most of the weekend. I also need to talk to this editor about that tag while I have his attention. Can we do this tomorrow? Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: It's great that you're trying to save this bad translation, but understand that the problem is not that the article is badly translated, but that it is badly written, very one-sided. Adding references doesn't change much, any nonsense can be sourced. Besides, as you yourself admitted your knowledge in this topic is limited. For example crimes against Polish population are not a "background" but a part of UPA activity, they were still committed. OUN's collaboration with Germans did not end in 1941, but they resumed it after Bandera was released from prison. That just examples Marcelus (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've already told me about 42-43 and I have agreed that anything that happened then should be included, found some sources (see Further Reading) and also read quite a few of them. Bandera got out in 44 when the Soviets came back, right? If so it is in scope whatever the topic is (see extensive lament above). But the issue here is that I get interrupted every five minutes by somebody that says I am a bad person or the article can't be fixed, or I am ignorant, or whatever. So. I am pedalling as fast as I can, and I need to go look at the sentence that the other editor is talking about before I fall asleep or he wanders off. Let me get back to you on the one-sidedness of the article, eh? Working on it. Elinruby (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be real, you are ignorant on this topic, which is obvious from your comments and edit, you even admitted that yourself Marcelus (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow @Marcelus:! That's sounds like a personal attack. I feel we should all dial-down the temperature and a bit more WP:CIVIL is in order. And by the way, there's no requirement that any of the volunteer editors on wikipedia need to be scholars in any area they edit. They simply need to use reliable sources to edit and improve articles. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s not. That's a legitimate concern. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nah @BetsyRMadison:, that's how the things looks like, nobody needs to be a scholar to edit and I don't take away editing rights from anyone, but it doesn't change the fact it would be nice to know something about the topic Marcelus (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Do you know what they call a heart surgeon who didn't graduate 1st in the class? A heart surgeon. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Soviet occupation. We do have page Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany. This page is also a legitimate subpage of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. And it covers really a lot of sourced content, and during a different specific time frame, i.e. after WWII. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes (and all) You know what? That’s might be a good idea. What do you folks think about the article being renamed to UPA post-WW2 warfare against the Soviet Occupation and focusing on that time frame? I would be in favour of keeping such article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Ukrainian Insurgent Army armed resistance against Soviet Union/Ukrainian armed resistance against Soviet Union? But I don't know if we can keep parts about communist Poland and CzechoslovakiaMarcelus (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you might be right. But also why focus on the fight against the USSR only since they kept fighting Poland and Czechoslovakia as well ... anyway, I believe if we focus on post WW2 then the article might have a more potential of being kept. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes: ironically, there was a discussion to rename the article (here [82]) and then suddenly, within a 4 minute span (yes, 4 minute span) someone decided to start this AFD to Delete (here [83]). No pre-discussion, not well thought out -- more like a knee-jerk reaction in the span of 4 minutes. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Soviet occupation. And then add the Ukraine's armed resistance against the Socialist Soviets 1919-1922, which ended with the Socialist Bolsheviks from Moscow bloodily destroying the Ukrainian resistance.XavierItzm (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @XavierItzm - Was the 1919-1922 resistance against the Soviets conducted by the same Banderites UPA the article is about? No, it was not. Really, folks please pay attention to such things before commenting. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've misread the comment you replied to; the editor didn't say anything about Banderites. The editor gave an idea for part of a Background section that would include the Ukrainian independent forces (plural) fighting the Socialist Bolsheviks from 1917-1921 (Soviet-Ukraine) War, 1917–21. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / navigation. It looks like this will be a "keep" with the caveat that nearly everybody says that it needs major changes. My thought above was "keep for now and then in the next phase decid what to do with it". Possibly we could combine the next phase into this AFD? First temporarily set issues about article quality aside. IMO, the fundamental question (after which time the title can be derived) is: What should the topic and scope of this article be? If anyone is game for my idea, I invite them to post a few sentences with an answer to that question and a few notes on a rationale for that answer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been sourced and the topic seems to be notable. As said above, the article needs extensive cleanup, however. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article often refers to source publications (mainly collections of documents), very often to the 'UPA Yearbook', according to the website [84] Litopys UPA: publishes source documents and materials in four series with an aim to stimulate interest not only in the UPA activities but in a more general way, also in the history of Ukraine of that period. Does the article therefore meet the requirements of WP:OR, mainly the exclusion of primary sources WP:PRIMARY?Marcelus (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, these are not RS's for this particular topic area. Refer to ArbCom ruling on it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [85] Moxy- 22:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: should we remove parts based on primary sources then? Marcelus (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcelus Yes. Perhaps wait for the culmination of this AfD or do it now if you have time. We will evaluate all sources if this is to be kept later anyway. I didn’t examine all the references but from what I saw most of the text is referenced to the sources that don’t fulfill the expectations, such as UPA diaries (primary) or junk from websites dedicated to UPA. That all has to go. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a feeling the article will stay, so it's a good idea to start improving it now. I'll do it, but not likely today or tomorrow, probably around the weekendMarcelus (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article is a pretty notable subject and is a good way to spin off material from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article into an article related to the insurgency it took part in. The War of the Camisards page used to be a redirect to Camisards until I managed to fix that.
    That said, there are massive POV problems within the article. This includes a failure to mention the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, as well as the fact that that the UPA was an anti-semitic, Anti-Polish, terrorist organization[1] that collaborated with Nazis. The title is also rather POV.
    TL;DR, the article is written poorly, and a bettern name would be desired, but still, WP:SPINOFF and WP:DINC. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the massacres of Poles prominently belong to page Ukrainian Insurgent Army, but I do not think that it was a part of their war against the Soviet occupation, so does not belong to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chupke Se Bahar Ajaye[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Existing sources are the worldcat entry for the book the show is based on, a blog episode guide, a great source for one of the actors but only passing mention for the show, one somewhat decent source that focuses on one episode and a borderline useful pre-release publicity article. There's nothing after the show was released and the show itself was short-lived. This is probably best a redirect to the novel and a short blurb about the show in that article. Ravensfire (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The user "Ravenfire" reason for the deletion feels inappropriate as he has already mentioned himself that subject does have decent source, a great source of one of the cast members, the reference to the book show is based on. What else do you think should be added as a source for a TV series. He has done the same before and has nominated multiple articles for deletion as he did with Khidmat Guzar. As per my opinion the show can be improved and new references may be added to make it better but deletion is not appropriate under the circumstances. I can name a lot of articles who are in even worse condition than this article subjected to deletion, such as not even having a source but still they are on Wikipedia as main articles. Why? Lillyput4455 (talk) 01:41,7 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lillypu4455, please read my comment closely. The "great source" is great for the actor, but only has a passing mention for the show, meaning it is NOT a great source for this article. What's needed here are multiple sources that have significant covergage of the show. There's a super short blurb for the plot. A cast list. Really basic info in the lead. One decent source about one episode. And that's about it. Nothing post-release. I've said this multiple times before, and AFC reviewers have said this before and you've ignored it again and again. A reception section, a production section - all things with sources that would help. You've got to stop ignoring the comments from others.
And yes, there are other articles on Wikipedia worse that this one. Lots of them. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we're talking about this article, not others. You're welcome to start AFD discussions on those articles if you'd like.Ravensfire (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Boxing Federation (organization)[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation that fails WP:GNG. The best source I could find in my BEFORE search was this (ref. #2 in the article). The author, Chris Glover, a self-described PR specialist, worked for the organisation (as seen here), making the source unusable for notabilty purposes (regardless, I don't think it's enough for GNG on its own). Regarding the other references:

1 is a primary source

3 is an interview with the president of the World Boxing Foundation

4 is a passing mention

5 doesn't mention the organisation

6 is a list of fights

7 and 8 cover the World Boxing Foundation

To clarify the situation between the World Boxing Federation and World Boxing Foundation; the latter was originally known as the World Boxing Federation, rebranded to World Boxing Foundation in 2004, then the current World Boxing Federation was formed in 2009. They're sperate organisations. – 2.O.Boxing 22:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Nava[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reasoning provided. The subject fails WP:GNG and is a possible case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Many refs are non-WP:RS and all RS coverage is from local media about the subjects death and the criminal proceedings for the drunk driver that killed Nava GPL93 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a stretch of a highway named after you does not automatically confer notability and Nava did not receive any high-level National award (neither listed awards are even state-level as they are from a non-profit for burn victims and a firefighter's advocacy group). The only applicable notability standard that applies is GNG which Nava pretty clearly does not pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete died before the internet was big, so it's hard to find online sources. I find 5 hits in GNewspapers, mostly just reporting of what happened in local news. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given that the only rationale for keeping (that there is a small stretch of a highway named after Nava and that he had received two non-notability lending awards from non-government entities that don't appear to themselves be notable) has been disproven, this discussion should definitely not be closed as a "no consensus" and should either be relisted or be closed as a regular or soft delete. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No SIGCOV in newspaper archives or anywhere else. The highway stretch renaming clearly cannot save this article. Atchom (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Lee (businessman)[edit]

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

His father was a member of parliament, but he isn't. The few sources out there are promotional. Pikavoom Talk 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pikavoom, Yes I understand that the person Raza Lee is not a member of parliament but he is prominent business person in Zanzibar, I understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia well. However, talking of the sources cited they are not promotional and I verified them (they are all legit ) before inserting them. Magotech (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – fails WP:BASIC/the GNG. The sources cited in the article are unreliable blogs, non-independent interviews, and the like, and my search did not find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG. Similarly, I could find no independent, in-depth coverage. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Chico and Guapo[edit]

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

Show seems to fail WP:NTV. Show only lasted five episodes and garnered zero WP:RS attention. Deprodded without comment by editor whose talk page is full of warnings for disruptive editing, and who replaced the prod with a misused {{cleanup}} tag. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:NTV is an essay, not a policy/guideline. Secondly, the one reference that is in the article seems to be an offline source, so to say that this article "garnered zero WP:RS attention" may be jumping the gun. Other than the one reference in the article and mentions on websites like TV Guide, IMDB, Apple TV, etc, this doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere in any textual source that can be found just by performing a Google/Google News search. This could probably be merged somewhere (like with Orlando Jones), but keeping may still also be an option depending on what the one reference in the article entails (that is, if there's a way for anyone here to pull up what's in it?).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMDb, Apple TV, and TV Guide are just directory listings which do not garner WP:SIGCOV. The book cited in the article gives a two-line synopsis which can hardly be considered significant either. Newspapers.com returned only 23 results, all of which were either TV Guide listings or reprints of an MTV press release that only dedicates one sentence to the show at the very end. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can probably be merged/redirected then. I'd say either Orlando Jones or List of programs broadcast by MTV2 is a proper target. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- An additional RS is available here: [86]. matt91486 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's still only one RS though. The encyclopedia already in the article is not WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your assessment of that, as it has commentary of several lines as well on the next page. I consider the encyclopedia entry entirely sufficient as a reliable source. matt91486 (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. In my opinion, a single in-depth source shouldn't be enough to prove notability. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Camacho, Melissa (2022-03-01). "The Adventures of Chico and Guapo. TV review by Melissa Camacho, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "The Adventures of Chico and Guapo is gritty and includes sexual innuendo, simulated sex acts, and mild profanity (the stronger profanity is in Spanish). It also offers some positive cultural references that reflect the characters' Latino culture, such as Chico's relationship with his grandmother and the pride Guapo takes in announcing that he's from the Dominican Republic. Sadly, these positive details are too easily overshadowed by the series' coarse humor and extreme stereotyping, which ultimately makes those negative stereotypes easier to accept."

    2. Johanson, M. (November–December 2006). "The Adventures of Chico and Guapo: The Complete First Season". Video Librarian. Vol. 21, no. 6. p. 42. ISSN 0887-6851. EBSCOhost 23105789.

      The review notes: "Yup, it's another one of those cartoon shows that's strictly for grownups. You'll want to keep the kids away from the Beavis-and-Butthead-esque antics of sweet but dumb best friends Chico and Guapo, who "work" at a recording studio but mostly spend their time watching TV or attempting to kill themselves for the worker's comp they imagine they'll receive if they deliberately electrocute themselves. ... Frantic and frequently fierce under its laidback facade, this is some quality funny business for adventurous viewers. Recommended."

    3. Ball, Ryan (July 2006). "MTV2 Sicks the Dogs on Animation". Animation Magazine. Vol. 20, no. 7. ISSN 1041-617X. EBSCOhost 505161821.

      The article notes: "Actor Orlando Jones (TV's The Evidence), who previously Lent his voice to DreamWorks' NBC primetime toon, Father of the Pride, co-created Chico and Guapo. The Flash-animated series is an extension of a cartoon bit that appeared on the short-lived, late-night talker The Orlando Jones Show. Each episode starts and ends with Chico and Guapo channel surfing and critiquing TV shows a [a Beavis & Butt-Head. But where sluggish thought processes were the order of the day on that series, the witty repartee between Chico and Guapo is so rapid-fire that one really has to watch each episode more than once to catch all the jokes. The rest of the show focuses on the duo's misadventures in the music industry as they hold down jobs at indie Label Angelo Productions."

    4. Perlmutter, David (2018). The Encyclopedia of American Animated Television Shows. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-5381-0374-6. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Google Books.

      The book provides three sentences of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Synopsis: Puerto Rican immigrant Chico Bustello and Dominican immigrant Guapo Martinez are determined to start successful careers in the music business, despite their incompetent behavior as employees of Angelo Records. Commentary: Originally featured as a recurring segment of Jones's eponymous series on FX, this project blatantly courted the adult audience for television animation by featuring not only sexual innuendo but also simulated sex acts as part of its narratives. These attributes drowned out the skilled acting that the creators/producers brought to the project, and it soon lost favor with audiences for obvious reasons."

    5. Hunt, Dennis (2003-06-23). "Two comic actors take on late-night talk". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "What really sets Jones' show apart is his nightly animation sequence, the racy, edgy "Adventures of Chico and Guapo.""

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Adventures of Chico and Guapo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 UEFA European Under-17 Championship Group A[edit]

2022 UEFA European Under-17 Championship Group A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did not find any evidence that we should create this article like this Hhkohh (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: Why not? How is it different from 2022 FIFA World Cup Group A or 2021 FIFA Arab Cup Group A? Mwiqdoh (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
U-17 is less notable than these articles you mentioned Hhkohh (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhkohh: Why does it matter that it is less notable? The only reason there is an article for that group specifically is so we can include the lineups and cards and substitutions for all the games. Mwiqdoh (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mwiqdoh So is it notable enough to write this? I cannot see any evidence that we should write Hhkohh (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhkohh: But why does it need to be notable to have separate articles for the group? Mwiqdoh (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this level of detail is not required for youth tournaments. GiantSnowman 18:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I don't mean to be annoying and reply to everyone, but I'm genuinely confused. Why is it bad that we have extra detail on a youth tournament? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious. Thanks, Mwiqdoh (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Sorry forgot to ping... Mwiqdoh (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mwiqdoh, see below. It's NOT an invitation to argue also below my opinion but hopefully provides the detail that you needed. gidonb (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: So the article can stay if I do it to all the articles? Mwiqdoh (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mwiqdoh, what I meant is that if you check the template below you will see that there also articles that we are actually missing. gidonb (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Ohhh so you would like me to create the red links instead? If so, then of course! Mwiqdoh (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mwiqdoh, that would be awesome! WP is blessed with wonderful sports enthusiasts, who sometimes get carried away a bit with games that are presently taking place. These can be interesting but all this excitement often results in excessive detail for the present and very recent past. In contrast, going backwards a bit in time, we still have real gaps in our sports coverage! gidonb (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We also have some gaps in the present. For example, players who played in major leagues and their careers were well updated. Now, later in their careers, they are still listed as playing at or training of clubs they last were at five years ago. gidonb (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Can you give an example of that? Mwiqdoh (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mwiqdoh, sure. For example, Geert Meijer played on Ajax. Not updated since he rejoined VV Strijen as a coach in 2006. 16 year ago. He is actually finishing his third run at Strijen this summer, with a run at Jong Sparta in between period 2 and 3. Even in and before 2006 much of his coaching goes unmentioned. You will see plenty of such cases also in other countries. gidonb (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough as it's a youth tournament. I would also not start doing it for previous editions until this here is completed. Kante4 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Groove[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV. Only source is an animation encyclopedia, no other sources found. Didn't involve any people of note. Deprodded with addition of {{cleanup}} which does nothing to help the lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Moss, Marilyn (2000-06-26). "Spy Groove". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 363, no. 33. p. 10. ProQuest 2467887115.

      The review notes: "Intermittently funny and almost entirely vacuous, MTV's new animated comedy series "Spy Groove" floats along for its half-hour without asking much out of life — just the chance to entertain and never to tax a brain in sight. ... The series tracks the adventures of two super-suave but mostly empty-headed spies — Agent No. 1 and Agent No. 2 — who travel the globe (mostly they float) trying to crack down on a variety of nasty villains who plot to take over the world and that sort of thing. ... Creators and co-producers Michael Gans, Richard Register and Kevin Thomsen create two lovable too-cool, been-there-done-that know-nothings."

    2. Prescott, Jean (2000-06-26). "'Spy Groove' Begins Operations on MTV". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "Anything that gets a double-truck spread -- that's two pages, facing -- in Talk magazine deserves a look. The anointed subject? "Spy Groove," a 30-minute animated serial comedy from the skewed psyches of Kevin Thomsen, Richard Register and Michael Gans. The magazine lavished praise on this creative trio in its May issue, and we're here to add a resounding huzzah to the mix. ... It's not rocket science, but thankfully it avoids potty humor, and the bic…"

    3. McFarland, Melanie (2000-06-28). "'Spy Groove' takes stab at vacuity of Hollywood". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: ""Spy Groove" is one of those shows whose time has come. Its mission: to deliver a hard slap to the celebrity worship and the glamorous life through satire, with the aid of cutting-edge animation and a heavy push by MTV. ... That's the show's weak point: It's humorous, but not the kind of humor that has you attempting to badly recreate the lines for friends the next day. Jam-packed with pop-culture references, the show hammers you over the head with them."

    4. Johnson, Kevin V. (2000-06-23). "'Spy Groove' breaks into MTV Dapper duo originally began as telemarketing training gimmick". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "Like the witty, barbed dialogue of Death Match, Spy Groove draws on current society for some of its edge, just in a different way. The series is littered with visual and audio references to pop culture. The theme from Charlie's Angels is audible at one point, as is the keening whine of a commercial for the Volkswagen Beetle."

    5. Jicha, Tom (2000-06-26). "Unamusing New MTV Spy 'Toon Misses the Groove". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "Undaunted, MTV is entering the fray with Spy Groove, a confusing, unamusing takeoff on the James Bond/Mission: Impossible genre. ... In a gimmick someone apparently thought was bright, the dapper heroes are known only as Agents 1 and 2. One of them (who is not necessarily 1; it's more trouble than it's worth to distinguish them) is patient and pensive, the other hyper and spontaneous. ... One of the negative traits ascribed to the MTV generation is a short attention span. This does not augur well for Spy Groove, which makes a half-hour seem like a lifetime."

    6. Gordon, Daphne (2001-03-04). "It's Spy Groovey, baby! - Cartoon spoofs and celebrates celebrity culture". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "The show has developed a cult following in the United States, where six episodes out of 13 have already aired on MTV. It's half a spoof, half a celebration of our fad-obsessed, gadget-gobbling, celebrity-worshiping culture. ... With its fluffy plots and shallow characters, the show's hyperbolic style is its greatest appeal. Surreal pastels swirl across the screen, while quick camera-angle changes mimic the pace and movement of a feature film."

    7. Ferris, Theresa Carpine (2000-06-26). "'Spy Groove' Characters Stuck in Rut". The Spokesman-Review. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "OK, it's only a cartoon. I shouldn't take the sexism seriously. But this is my point: Don't we have enough images of female perfection in the real world without creating animated ones? Even with all the girls, I think guys will find the show boring. It's not funny, it lacks action, and the characters just aren't that interesting. I'd rather see a half-hour of music videos than another series on MTV."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spy Groove to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Humidity indicator card. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Humidity indicator[edit]

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

No sources, fails GNG -- lomrjyo 🇺🇦 00:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "(PDF) Terrorists or national heroes? Politics and perceptions of the OUN and the UPA in Ukraine". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2022-05-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_27&oldid=1086707080"