Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 27 December 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T. Rafael Cimino[edit]

AfDs for this article:
T. Rafael Cimino (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)

First, this article has been deleted before: [1]. It appears nothing has changed and it still fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Of the four secondary sources cited, two only mention Cimino in a single sentence and neither article is about him, while the other two are dead links; these are just trivial mentions. The other sources cited are his own websites and Amazon. Also the creator of this article [2] might be Cimino himself of somebody close to him, as this editor has almost exclusively made edits about Cimino; this is a potential WP:COI violation. Baronet13 (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The arguments made in the nomination are correct. The sources that exist are either about his books or about George Jung, not about him. Given the absence of in-depth coverage about him in secondary sources used as references in the article and given that I was unable to find anything more meaningful in a Google search, I believe that the notability standard is not met. Alansohn (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Created by an SPA, not quite as luridly false as the first version, but I'm sure that this will return if not prevented. The books are self-published, the 5-star reviews are almost certainly false and include some of the fictional elements of the first version of the article ("we worked together on x movie set" etc.). As one Goodreads 2-star reviewer says: "As it happens a number of those 5 star reviews are from strikingly good looking women." This all smacks of the most blatant of self-promotional scams. There's just nothing that can be trusted. Lamona (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No any proof of notability Kaaduunaa (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom + fails WP:GNG Devokewater 10:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Davis[edit]

Jenna Davis (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)

Actress, dancer, singer-songwriter, and model (says the article) but not notable in all these categories. She's still very young (only 18) so she may very well turn out to be notable if her career takes off but she's not there yet. A Google search finds the obvious Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/IMDb\YouTube but no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She barely gets a mention about being in the film in Looper [3], then it's all the usual social media sites. Even the sourcing used in the article is scant, one talking about the trailer then the other one telling us about what she's wearing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft for now. The film has a lot of buzz right now, and is therefore likely to be a fairly sizable hit, which would inevitably lead to more coverage for its stars. BD2412 T 14:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with added sources. I found a bunch of sources that mention her [4] [5] [6] [7] Most mentions seem credible and notable - I feel like this person should have wikipedia coverage HeliosSunGod (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: The sources that have been provided are just about the one film that is about to be released. I support adding it to a draft until more coverage is available. Mike Allen 17:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The article was created prematurely, but it is likely that the subject will be notable in the near future. BruceThomson (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftified should be, with the view to the future. LvivForev (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify While there may not be significant coverage about Davis now, there may be some in the future that would make them notable, so I support draftifying the article. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 21:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Electricity Regulatory Commission[edit]

Kerala Electricity Regulatory Commission (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)

Disputed draftification. While the regulatory body may well have notability, the creating editor has now twice moved this to main space with references that fail to establish that notability. Recommend Return to Draft Space as the favoured outcome. I cannot do this unilaterally under WP:DRAFTIFY or would have done so, hence this nomination. References are official releases (churnalism) or fail to mention the organisation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Timtrent (talk · contribs). Thanks for reviewing this article and sharing your feedback. If you feel the references are not enough I will add more to get notability. Apologies for issues. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we should interpret that as an opinion either for Return to Draft Space or to Keep this article.
    @Gardenkur More references is a bad idea. Better references to replace the poor ones is a good idea. My view is that the references you have are virtually useless, certainly in verifying notability. More than one show that the entity exists. Mere existence is insufficient. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, I agree. One of the references displays in my browser as a series of coding errors. Another couple of references somewhat pertain, to the extent that they concern energy regulation in India, but are not about Kerala, however.
The text looks like it might be cut and pasted from the organization's mission statement and About Us page.
There are one or two fairly good sources behind text that doesn't seem to be related. I would suggest that rather than learning about reliable sources through the AfD process, the author read WP:RS then ask a lot of questions at the Teahouse, which can be found at the Main page, possibly under Community. There is also the WP:RSN noticeboard for asking specific questions about specific sources in specific contexts. I do think that the organization is unquestionably notable -- it's an important state in a country that is going to be critical to implementing the Kyoto Protocol, for one thing, which is why the OP is asking us to recommend draftification not deletion.
But notability isn't really established here. It is important to realize that a link to the enabling legislation, while good as far as it goes, only proves that someone passed the law, but not that the organization as actually done anything to make it notable. There are some more technical problems: for example that Gandhi organization website has a mission statement but not a staff box. Given its history it might count as an RS anyway, but only if there are others. Generally speaking, sources do not necessarily have to be in English, but English is very much preferred. Possibly someone who is active on the Kerala page or one that is related can suggest some sources. I am willing to help you navigate the process a little, if you are serious about improving the article, but it really does need improvement. And I am no authority on either energy or Kerala. But feel free, for example, to ask a question on my talk page if you can't find the Teahouse or the Help Desk. You really need to. Elinruby (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see the problem, the subject is evidentally notable, the page needs some cleanup. I don't understand the call to draftify. JMWt (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Tried to link https://www.advocatekhoj dot com/library/bareacts/electricityregulatory/17.php?Title=Electricity%20Regulatory%20Commissions%20Act,%201998&STitle=Establishment%20and%20incorporation%20of%20State%20Commission in the article but the site appears to be blacklisted for some reason. I think there seems to be some sources online, particularly legislation HeliosSunGod (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (One last time). There are issues: 1)- there does appear to be likely cut and pasted material (noted) or at best close paraphrasing, 2)- some apparent refbombing, where some added references do not back up material (noted), 3)- Primary sourcing, 4)- The author may need to either consult with others or send this through AFC before republishing. The organization is more than likely notable (also noted) but this may be a case where Blow it up and start over might be a possibility. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - notable for energy law, but needs more work. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laide Bakare[edit]

Laide Bakare (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 actress and business person does not meet WP criteria for notability per WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:ORGSIG. That the article includes statements such as she is "rumored to want body enhancement" and that she "frowned against COVID vaccination payment" is grasping at straws. Netherzone (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Arts, and Music. Netherzone (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fluff article here and all the sources I find about this individual are fluffy, tabloid gossip style stories. Nothing for GNG or Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A WP:BEFORE search reveal several sources from some of Nigeria's top news sources: Vanguard News [8], P.M. News [9], Legit.ng [10], Premium Times [11]. Some of it is your typical, poorly-written celebrity gossip, but the fact that she gets it is pretty easy proof of WP:GNG. Also, deletion is not an alternative to improvement, and there is nothing here that warrants WP:TNT. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In my BEFORE I found that most of what is out there is PR-placement based on press releases, social media, and other fluff. This "coverage" is trivia, not significant coverage WP:SIGCOV,which indicates it is WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. The Vanguard piece is the closest to something substantial, but it is really tabloid puffery like Laide confirmed to E-Daily that she has been wrestling with destiny to fulfil her dreams. - very little substance for a biographic encyclopedia article. The PMNews piece is Native advertising based on a press release and a few press photos, not SIGCOV - scroll to the bottom and it states it's advertising. The LegitNG piece is tabloid trivia Bakare has left tongues wagging; she rocked several outfits, announcing that her social media timeline to share some jaw-dropping photos as she posed for the camera in different outfits, etc. The Premium Times pice is no better, its gossip about her separation from her husband. None of this "coverage" is in-depth coverage of her work as a serious actress or business person. Netherzone (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP: BEFORE didn't show you any of the numerous awards she had won in more than 20 years of her career? That's surprising. Shoerack (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect about that, I always do a BEFORE search and did one for this article. Dubious additions were added to the article several times. It seems the only award actually received was for costumes in a film, others were nominations. It appears to be PR placement, and it is surprising the BON award website itself does not seem to mention her. It's WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did misrepresent her award by claiming that the dress she wore won the BON, which was factually incorrect. You clearly didn't know that "best costume" was an award category like the Academy Award for Best Costume Design until I set the record straight. She received the BON award for her film Jejere. That alone satisfied WP:ANYBIO #1. Yes, I mistakenly took the BON award for another notable award, the City People Entertainment Awards, that she won by stating that she won the BON award for a lead role. But according to sources that I do not consider reliable, she won the award. I didn't include it because I have yet to see a reliable source to establish the claim. That being said, please note that BON and many other notable awards in countries in Africa do not maintain a long list of all awardees. So, I do not understand your point that the award website did not include her name. Shoerack (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please stop citing WP:TOOSOON . It's not a policy anywhere on Enwiki but an essay, and that essay only applies to "recent events, people, new products, and any other topics about which facts have only recently emerged or are still emerging." In this case, we are talking about an actress whose acting career spans more than 20 years. Shoerack (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For someone with only 121 total edits it's really impressive that you are so familiar with WP policy, essays, acronyms! It took me a couple years to even find AfD. How did you learn so fast? Netherzone (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enwiki policies are learnable, and they can be mastered in no time, especially important ones such as WP:N. Everything we have written here in the past 7 days revolves around WP:N, its criteria, and its application. Shoerack (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and I and others who have participated in this discussion in the last 2 weeks. Shoerack (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete There are sources both in the article and presented above. These sources are generally tabloid in nature, however. I'm hesitant to accept these as reliable based on WP:NEWSORG. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources, the sources in the article are reliable sources. Thank you. Shoerack (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raj News[edit]

Raj News (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 notable news channel. Can't find any reliable source in internet. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 28 December 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! 23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaakai[edit]

Kaakai (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 notable newspaper. Can't find any reliable source in internet. All the cited sources in the article are not reliable and independent. There is only one reliable citation which is from Department of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, Government of Tripura but it has trivial mention. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 28 December 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. Participants here believe this subject's coverage establishes that they pass WP:GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.V.R. Raja[edit]

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

Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Sources in the article are not reliable. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes this article follows Wikipedia's standard policies and guidelines, based on WP criteria and notable elements mentioned below.
  1. WP:BASIC and GNG. subject have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable major news sources such as 1,2,3,4,5, 6,7 exists that have more than a paragraph or so on him. There might be more in print. Should be good enough for basic.
  2. WP:MUSICBIO no. 8, nominated for a major music award South Indian International Movie Awards 1, 2
  3. WP:MUSICBIO no. 9, Fist place in major music competitions for National Youth Festival Organized by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.[12]
  4. WP:MUSICBIO no. 5, Released albums on a major Record Labels like Times Music 1 and Aditya Music 2 qualifies him.
  5. He is known music composer for two Telugu films. 1 , 2

According to the list above, this article is complies with Wikipedia standard policies and guidelines, provides accurate sources. This article was created solely by gathering information from several major reliable publications. Adequate sources are attached for each topic in the article. Make sure you check the article one more time before taking any action. Thank you.--Induvadhone (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I was unable to review the 4 non-english sources, but the English language sources does not look so good, the 2 times of india sources is questionable due to paid news, and source 1 is clearly promotional.
  2. the South Indian International Movie Awards is not a award about music, regardless on whether its major enough
  3. the National Youth Festival is way below the threshold of a major music competition
  4. the guideline links to Record label#Major labels, which only lists Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group
  5. has nothing to do with notability if the films themselves are not notable
Justiyaya 16:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
based on [WP:MUSICBIO] no. 5 Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years). Aditya Music and Times Music Are these indie labels or not? Induvadhone (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the wording on the guideline is really ambiguous but note important, the question is really if they are important or not labels... I would argue not but it's up for debate Justiyaya 17:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 28 December 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 Koç University. There's less discussion that I'd like of Umimak's sources; NJOURNALS doesn't need to be met if GNG is. However, absent any other support for this argument, there's clearly current consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Ankara Studies[edit]

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed without reason given, but with the addition of abstracting/indexing info. However, none of the databases added are selective in the sense of NJournals, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can see on the Journal's webpage that the Journal is indexed by several databases: https://ankaradergisi.org/eng/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levo3506 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I mentioned that the journal is included in those databses, but unfortunately they are not selective enough to contribute to notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what is their impact factor? That would help determine notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The journal is not included in any Clarivate database, so it has no impact factor either. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • !Vote Keep journal is reviewed in De Sanctis, Carlotta (2015). "Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi/Journal of Ankara Studies". Reviews. Eurasian Studies. 13 (1–2): 187–188. doi:10.1163/24685623-12340011. and in "New Journals". Journal of Economic Literature. 56 (1): 377. 2018. JSTOR 26417234. It also appears in Claybaugh's 2019 A Research Guide to Southeastern Europe: Print and Electronic Sources and in EBSCO's The Belt and Road Initiative Reference Source. Umimmak (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) update: clarify position Umimmak (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment for people arguing delete, I’d like a response especially to the review, that seems significant. Also what counts as a selective database; why does Index Islamicus not count? Umimmak (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be too small to warrant inclusion here on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What seems too small? The two page review? Index Islamicus? Umimmak (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The journal is too "small/unimportant" to have gained critical attention. It's not the New England Journal of Medicine. It's a peer-reviewed journal for a small university with a limited distribution, lacking critical attention from the educational community at large. The fact that it's not indexed anywhere and has no h-factor is a good indication of how minor the journal is. Not to say it's unimportant, but doesn't qualify for coverage here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment also WP:NJOURNALS says For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. I just want to make sure we're not applying STEM journal standards to non-STEM journals. It continues: In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This is an open-access, online journal, so libraries don't really "hold" them in their collections, but many library catalogues still include them, including: Brown, Claremont Colleges, Delaware, Duke, GWU, Harvard, Notre Dame, St. And, Stanford, UAlberta, UCL, UMD, and UQAM as an arbitrary sampling. Also note Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject. Umimmak (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This journal is not indexed in any selective database. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. Nanosci (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also think that what counts selective database needs to be clarified and kindly ask for this clarification. --Basak (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We call a database selective if it includes only journals that have passed a quality assessment. Most databases only select for topic, but try to include everything within that particulate topic. The DOAJ, for example, aims to include every OA journal, with obviously fraudulent journals excepted. Hope this clarifies. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it has no impact factor and isn't indexed, it seems a clear case for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could perhaps redirect or merge to the university, that seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the suggestion of a Redirect or Merge (and to what target).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Could be merged to the university page however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psi.Kore[edit]

Psi.Kore (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)

Too little-known band, thery are nothing have to be in Wikipedia. Crystallizedh, 16:34, 28 December 2022

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Abramovich Smirnov[edit]

Valery Abramovich Smirnov (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)

Nonnotable Russian monk Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Christianity, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is not a monk, but a journalist. All links currently on the page are dead, and one of them is "fake" (i.e. leads to a source about another Smirnov). Version on ruwiki about him is much better than this page, but I still did not see any proof of notability beyond a few publications in Russian periodicals. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links on the page can be fixed, i.e. one can find mentioning the subject in self-published database by Yakov Krotov (lower part of the page, the photo is of another Smirnov!). This is an acceptable source, but such mention only enforces the point that the subject is not notable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 29 December 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Abdelwasea[edit]

Omar Abdelwasea (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)

Played one season in an WP:FPL then disappeared. I've tried to find at least one source that might meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC but have failed to find any in any language. I found Al Watan 1, which is a trivial mention and Al Watan 2, which also offers nothing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and too few sources. :— Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 10:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Rose[edit]

Valerie Rose (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 individual does not meet notable guidelines. After searching for information on her it is all social media and non Reliable Sources. VVikingTalkEdits 17:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep, could use for some better sourcing. But doesn't look like it entirely fails GNG all around the way most things do when I'm patrolling for AfD's...
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My searches found nothing to support notability CT55555(talk) 19:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage. Her impressive filmography are just "appearances". Lokys dar Vienas (talk)
  • Delete. There must be significant coverage, which does not appear to be present. And a general list of sources does not meet our referencing requirements. Kablammo (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly her strongest notability claim would be as producer of The Epicenter, a documentary about the aftermath of George Floyd's death, which got her a mention (e.g. in the Star Tribune) when it was selected to be shown at the Cannes Short Film Festival. There is also a brief mention about one of her books in a widely syndicated Knight Ridder article about self-publishing in 2004. Unfortunately, neither article offers in-depth information about Rose herself. It takes some effort (and/or time) to sift through all the coverage of people with "Valerie Rose" in their name, of which there are quite a few, but so far I haven't been able to find much else in the way of secondary coverage about this Valerie Rose, which would meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Another good page to read is WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography In any case, if promotion is what you are after, there are many other websites and wikis available that are better suited than Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having a film in the court metrage (Cannes Short Film Festival) is not as prestigious as the main screen. Not sure one way or the other about notability. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Stanford[edit]

George Stanford (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 BLP about a musician is poorly sourced. There are 23 references and none are WP:RS. There are 5 refs to Twitter, 3 to Facebook, 1 to IMDb, 3 to Stanford's blog, 2 to YouTube, 1 to Amazon, 3 to Instagram, 1 to Vimeo and 1 to iTunes. There is one to a record company site which is now a deadlink, one to a concert announcement on soundsofthecityblog, and one to a ticket site. The External Links section has a link to NPR which may be ok coverage, but is short. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found anything to add. I don't think Stanford meets WP:NMUSIC and the article has been tagged with that concern since 2016. Tacyarg (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, instead of nominating for deletion. Perhaps clean up the sources then? If after what is left is still failing WP:GNG, then lets re-nominate for AfD. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:47, 28 December 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 Al-Muhajiroun. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah[edit]

Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah (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 group does not have particularly clear notability. An organization with an extremely generic name, aside from the initial BBC story, its mentions appear largely trivial. It is not mentioned in connection with the Danish embassy event on the actual page for that event, so the only thing it seems to actually be connected with is one tiny protest (in Luton) - which itself seems like a pretty non-eventful or trivial cause for notability. Not exactly an organization for the history books, or, I would suggest here, one of real encyclopedic interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not a shred of notability. Maliner (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly merge): The organisation is mentioned as prominent in a reference book on islamophobia.[15] The protest in Luton was covered by several natonal media.[16][17] As per this report, Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah was already reported as successor of Al-Muhajiroun by BBC in 2005, and was in 2009 renamed back to Al-Muhajiroun, which is "the most notorious of the domestic Salafi-jihadist groups" in the UK; it also adopted the name Islam4UK. --TadejM my talk 12:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did take a look at that book and it is, as far as I can tell, the only one that individual ever wrote. They are not clearly an established subject-matter expert on the subject of British Muslim groups, and I would say we should take their designation of it as 'prominent' with a pinch of salt. Without other supporting sources, it is a rather exceptional claim. On the second note, if this group is indeed identical to Al-Muhajiroun, but merely rebranded for five years, it should almost certainly be merged back into the "Disbandment", early aliases: 2004–2009 section of that page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Al-Muhajiroun page seems to attribute the same Luton protest assigned to the group here to that group, furthering the impetus for a merger. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The matter of fact is that this group or name regularly appears in sources on the history of Al-Muhajiroun in the UK for the relevant period,[18][19][20] so it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia to ensure the comprehensibility of the topic. --TadejM my talk 18:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge), Fails GNG based on current sources. I would say that we could merge if appropriate though. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 28 December 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ejad Labs[edit]

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

Does not meet with WP:ORGCRITE and WP:GNG criteria as the company organized only 2 events and some references are primary, non reliable and non independent. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 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. Sandstein 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Salisbury City Council election[edit]

2021 Salisbury City Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an election to a parish council, the lowest level of local government in England. I don't believe this is a notable level of election.

The article was prodded, but the prod was removed with the edit summary "there is surely a fundamental mistake in the idea of “a notable level of local authority”, any subject can be notable if it complies with WP:N". The deprodder has confused notability of the local authority itself (no-one is proposing to delete Salisbury City Council) with elections to the body.

Also nominating these articles for the same reason:

Cheers, Number 57 14:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • P.S. There is a whole template Template:Wiltshire elections of similar borougn/district elections to dlete. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the elections on that template (except for the Salisbury ones, which were only recently added) are for county/unitary/district council elections, which are higher levels than parish councils. Number 57 21:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spiseder) 14:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Curntag (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC) — Curntag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The warding and results can be covered in the council's article. Wire723 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I fail to see the benefit of listing the candidates when not one of them (in any of the four tranches of elections) is a blue link. Having Wiltshire Council publish these lists is sufficient. Wire723 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wire723, on your last point, most local authorities take down all of the information within a few years. Try spot checking. On your first point, see below. On your middle point, the names are useful (and often significant) locally. You may feel that the political labels are more useful generally. Moonraker (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvinced ... if Wiltshire Council don't think the details are worth preserving, and we agree notability of the people is purely local, that supports deletion of the articles. Certainly the politics of the elected town council is worth a mention in its article, although national parties are usually of low relevance in these community councils. Wire723 (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed with nom. Merge this content as summation in council's article. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • summarize/redirect all election pages into the corresponding administrative entity articles. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - By themselves elections to the equivalent of parish councils are not going to be notable enough for an article unless there is some other reason that alters this (eg substantial media coverage) and that does not seem to be the case here. Dunarc (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Curntag says, “Easily passes WP:GNG”. These are very worthwhile articles for WikiProject Wiltshire. In reply to Dunarc, notability is not about importance, but even if it were, in this case what is technically a parish council is also the council of a historic city with a lot of functions and employees. The crunch question is whether Salisbury City Council is notable, and if it is we surely do not want to clutter up articles on councils with detailed information on all the elections they have had. They would be swamped. Moonraker (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't bother to respond to Curntag, as they are an SPA posting seemingly random votes on AfDs. However, there is nothing in the 2021, 2017 or 2013 articles that evidences GNG; they all have a single reference, which is to the local authority that organised the elections (and therefore not independent). The 2009 election has eleven references, of which only one (the Salisbury Journal) is an independent source. Number 57 18:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 page may be better referenced because of your previous AfD on it, but you could make this argument about the vast majority of WP’s election pages. As I see it, Wiltshire Council is a primary source here, one which can be relied on for facts but not opinions. It only acts as a publisher, it does not organize the elections. The Returning Officer and his or her staff do that. Moonraker (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not this nonsense again... The local authority does organise the elections – what do you think the Electoral Services team does? Number 57 19:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Electoral Services team publishes the official notices, including the ones that elections will be held, and also the results afterwards. The Returning Officer drafts the various official notices and hires people to run the polling stations and the count. Most of those (but not all) are local authority employees. Moonraker (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you are genuinely uninformed about this, or are trying to mislead other editors. Returning officers are officers of the council (almost always the council's Chief Executive in my experience). Here's Wiltshire Council's Chief Exec explaining "Every county or county borough council is required to appoint an officer of the council to be the Returning Officer..." And here is Wiltshire Council's delegation scheme confirming that the Chief Executive is the Returning Officer. Number 57 12:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57, I am afraid you are mistaken. The local authority does not organize elections, even if the returning officer also works for it. See here what the Electoral Commission says: “As Returning Officer you play a central role in the democratic process… You are personally responsible for the conduct of the election... Your duties as Returning Officer are separate from your duties as a local government officer. As Returning officer you are not responsible to the council but are directly accountable to the courts as an independent statutory office holder.“ Frankly, no elected political body would be trusted to organize any election and not to meddle in it. The returning officer is paid separately for the election work, as are any staff he hires to help him, who can be anyone competent to do it. So my point stands, that in this case WC is only acting as a printer and publisher of someone else’s notices. The crunch is really that the documents come from the returning officer, who is absolutely independent from SCC. Moonraker (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't understand how local elections work (do you really think a single returning officer is able to organise an election without the council's Electoral Services team doing all the work?), but thanks for confirming that "the documents come from the returning officer" and so are not from an independent source, and don't contribute to WP:GNG. Number 57 09:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, Number 57, Hroðulf and Graemp are retired, and Jaguar hasn’t edited for months. But their points are still good. I see no one making any ethnic complaints in that discussion, it’s about notability. Do you agree, by the way, that Salisbury City Council is a notable subject? Moonraker (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed the bit where an editor said "The perspective of an editor specialising in USA subject matter, is going to be less useful". And no-one is disputing the notability of the city council. The question here is whether elections to it are notable or not. Number 57 18:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Number 57, glad to hear we agree that the council itself is notable. But it is an elected body, so hard to see how anyone could argue that the elections to it are non-notable: they are an inherent aspect of such a body, the only question is whether the election coverage should all sit on the main page, as I think you are suggesting, or whether it is better on sub-pages like these ones. So far as I can see, this is the pattern used by all other elected bodies, so there is nothing unusual here. That leads back to the point about clutter that I made above. Moonraker (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was seven years ago. As you know, our guidelines have become considerably more strict since then. Also, while I can see the notification to Moondragon21 being plausibly not canvassing as they are a local and may have local expertise, the ping to other previous participants who agreed with you while not pinging the participant who disagreed is highly inappropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7, I haven’t yet complained that I was not notified as the creator of the first of these pages. Perhaps we can just concentrate on the issues. When you say guidelines have become more strict since 2015, please do say what has changed and which policy guidelines you are referring to. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums has something helpful, but I am quite sure it does not support all details of elections appearing in the main page for the elected body. Moonraker (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fundamental question is whether these articles pass the general notability guideline. The importance or notability of Salisbury City Council is not relevant to this question, since notability is not inherited. So far, all but the 2009 election articles have a single source provided, thus not meeting the requirement for multiple reliable sources. The 2009 election article has additional sources, all but one of which are from returning officers. There has been a debate about whether these sources count as independent - to my mind, the close involvement of the council and returning officers in the running of these elections (regardless of the specific details about precisely how these elections are run) would indicate that these are not independent sources. Further - and regardless of whether one agrees with me about independence - these sources are all (as Moonraker points out) primary sources. Point 5 in WP:PRIMARY says Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. This would rule out the 2021, 2017, and 2013 articles - which at present have no additional sources - and would potentially rule out the 2009 article if the other sources are found not to be sufficient to establish notability. On top of all of this, WP:ROUTINE (based on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) says routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. I would suggest that the Wiltshire Council and returning officer sources are routine, the kind of coverage we would expect from an election, and so cannot confer notability. (In fact, these are not even routine coverage since they are not news reports but part and parcel of the elections themselves.) The only other source is in the 2009 article, a news story from a local paper - this is both routine coverage (as mentioned above) and a local paper (reducing the significance of the coverage from the source). I cannot find any further sources myself on any of these elections, and therefore !vote delete for all four articles on the basis of failing GNG. WJ94 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:INHERIT, WJ94, that says “Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects.” No doubt an election can comply with WP:N, but is it a runnable argument that elections to notable bodies can be non-notable? My point above is that elections to an elected body are an inherent aspect of the notable body itself. In other words, the GNG does not apply to them, only WP:Verifiability. Your logic seems to be that most elections can be covered in detail in (for instance) the Salisbury City Council or Wiltshire County Council pages, but sub-pages can’t be created to avoid clutter. I really think we need to see any policy that Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums has on this. Do you know where it is? But the idea of non-notable elections to notable bodies should really be canvassed with that project.
On the rest, I follow your reasoning, but the same could be said about almost all WP pages on elections that are not national ones, and indeed about some on national elections. And however good the academic and media coverage is, in most cases the only sources that provide *all* the detailed information in them on the results are official primary sources, which can be relied on for facts. As you say, primary sources do not count for notability. Moonraker (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether to also redirect is up to editors. Sandstein 21:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vachathi[edit]

Vachathi (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE

PROD removed with "Afd it" DonaldD23 talk to me 13:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see sources that definitely establish notability. Shahid • Talk2me 14:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to list them? DonaldD23 talk to me 17:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources provided, and optionally redirect to Vachathi case. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by HJ Mitchell under G3. (non-admin closure) ~StyyxTalk? 20:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Hemyari[edit]

Ahmed Al-Hemyari (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)

Confusing article about a supposed footballer with a few red flags about its accuracy. First of all, the subject is not mentioned in the official website of the national football team, though I'm not sure if it's updated or not.

The infobox states that the subject scored 3 goals with the Yemeni national team for which he plays from 2018 onwards, yet the article itself lists 4, with 2 of them being in 2015, when the subject was... 13 years old? There is an easy explanation for this: those 2 are copied from Ahmed Al-Sarori, who was listed as the number 7 of the Yemeni national team everywhere on Wikipedia until early December this year. They just copied the table from that article. The third and fourth goals are copied from the article of Abdulwasea Al-Matari.

The only sources about this person are databases, some are weird while some are somewhat known. Those only say that his career started in or after 2019.

So per these databases, it would meet the former WP:NFOOTBALL, but that's depreciated and footballers now need to pass the SPORTCRIT, which this certainly does not. May be a hoax, definitely not notable. ~StyyxTalk? 13:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: If this page has some problems, it can be cleaned and fixed by the editors instead of deletion, and if the page is not noticeable and the sources are not reliable, then all pages Yemeni footballers and Qatari footballers It should be deleted 90% of the pages of the Yemeni and Qatari football players are not noticeable and also the sources were brought from sources similar to the page Ahmed Al-Hemyari.
If you care about notability, look at this Yemeni footballers and Qatari footballers You will find 90% of the profiles of the players are not prominent .
I hope all editors will fix and clean this article instead of deleting it because this is a Yemeni player in a category Yemeni footballers Instead of deleting it, you should clean and repair it If there are doubts about the reliable or notable sources, I hope this discussion applies to all pages Yemeni footballers and Qatari footballers . Thank you I really appreciate your contributions and have a nice day .
Mohammed Ali Joke (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. On a further note, if 90% of the individuals in the above mentioned categories lack the significant coverage to pass GNG, then their articles should also be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a cursory look at the Qatari footballers and was shocked to see that the majority of them don't have significant coverage cited. Whether or not such coverage exists is, of course, another matter. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 28 December 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plarent Fejzaj[edit]

Plarent Fejzaj (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 was unable to locate any sources that would cover the requirements of WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. I found nothing at all in Google News and ProQuest and, in other searches, the only non-database source that I could find was Newsport.al, which is nowhere near enough to pass the requirements for notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:55, 28 December 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. Weak consensus that WP:PROF#C6 is not met; clear consensus that no other criterion is met. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balvir S. Tomar[edit]

Balvir S. Tomar (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)

See WP:PROF). Most of the sources are unreliable:

  • Ref 1 - in Hindi, but Google Translate shows the description of Tomar is based on reported claims from a business associate (therefore not reliable)
  • Ref 2 - Wikipedia guidance is to treat Google Scholar with caution as it can include sources that are not peer-reviewed, and predatory journals, etc. "In essence, it is a rough guide only".
  • Ref 3 - APN News is of dubious quality - it reads like paid-for advertorial or blog content. It is not independent or journalistic in tone.
  • Ref 4 - A press release (stated at bottom of article) = unreliable
  • Refs 5 and 6 - from organisations founded by the subject = not independent, therefore unreliable.

This leaves Ref 7: a medical journal article co-authored by the subject in 1983. Not sufficient, IMHO, to justify notability. Paul W (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paul W (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As Chairman of the university, why wouldn't he be notable per Criteria #6 of WP:NACADEMIC?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Criteria #6 requires that the subject be in a role at "a major academic institution or major academic society" (emphasis added). NIMS University does not appear to be a major university. Paul W (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I noticed the word "major" and thought "now there's a murky word". How do we decide that? Number of students? Professors? How long it's been around? Major internationally? Country? State?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been doing a clean-up of the university article. "Major" is very much down to interpretation. NIMS is a relatively recent creation (2008), one of 52 State Private Universities in Rajasthan (one of 27 Indian states) alone; it appears to have 400 faculty members and around 3700 students (source); on the latter measure, for example, it has half the students of the University of Rajasthan, also in Jaipur. Paul W (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while perhaps per nom it could use more sources. What is present is sufficient to just barely meet WP:GNG in my view.— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citations not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and the data from Paul W leaves me far from convinced that NIMS is major enough for #C6. I removed a paragraph of promotionally-written material about claims of a medical breakthrough with only primary sources that appear to fail WP:MEDRS, and an additional sentence of primary-sourced promotionalism, but that left barely a stub's worth of material. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note recent edits by the article's creator. However, in my view, these do not change the case for deletion. One added source is a listing from a medical directory site (presumably using information sourced from the subject = unreliable); the second does not mention the subject (so is irrelevant); the third (in Hindi) appears to be an article based on NIMS University publicity (unreliable); the fourth addition reinstated a source deleted by David Eppstein for failing WP:MEDRS. The new content is also accompanied by promotional phrasing and the addition of a inline external link (contravening WP:EL). I will revert the additions, returning to the version by David Eppstein. Paul W (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citation profile is not up to NPROF C1 standards in his field, and NIMS doesn't appear sufficiently major in terms of research output or academic recognition for C6. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hamilton (voice actor)[edit]

Sarah Hamilton (voice actor) (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 redirected the article, but it has been restored. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Very few roles (see IMDb). Hamilton has voiced the character April Ryan (The Longest Journey) in The Longest Journey, but notability is not WP:INHERITED. Sources provided are about the game, half are about her medical issues. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find the sources used in the article, some are iffy, others trivial mentions. All I bring up on my own is an article saying she's asking for help with medical bills. [21]. I don't think we're at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC - coverage in the article includes a 2000 review in Just Adventure that includes a focus on her performance, a 2010 source from Rock Paper Shotgun about voice direction that refers to her as "the memorable voice of April Ryan in Tørnquist's Longest Journey games" for context, a 2013 source from Polygon that includes secondary context about her and her career in addition to interview content, and then there is coverage directly focused on the medical issues of e.g. "Voice actor Sarah Hamilton, best known in the gaming community for her role voicing protagonist April Ryan in Funcom's The Longest Journey and Dreamfall adventure games" (Polygon, 2013). Also, per WP:NACTOR, it appears she has had significant roles in multiple notable [...] productions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. For BASIC, we need significant coverage. The Just Adventure review says "April is brought to life by the voice of Sarah Hamilton. The overall voice acting in The Longest Journey is superb, and Funcom is to be commended for its excellent translation from Norwegian. Hamilton especially captures the inflection nuances that allow us to believe in April's growth as a woman". That's not a "focus on her performance", but a passing mention. The RPS piece is about voice acting in general, not about Hamilton specifically. The Polygon piece, while does mention Hamilton, is mainly about developer Tornquist. The piece says it up pretty clearly: "Hamilton's resume is a hodgepodge of various disconnected acting roles and voice work. She can be heard on commercials, has read for audiobooks and, beyond her time with Tornquist and the team, had a hand in two kiddie games — of the "learn-to-read" variety, she says." It's terrible she had those medical issues, but it doesn't establish her any further as a voice actor. IMDb lists a total of five credits, three of which are voicing the character April Ryan, the other being Dancer #1 in Tricks (no article) and voicing a character in This Is the Police II (no article), the sequel to This Is the Police. So we come back to The Longest Journey, but notability is not inherited. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC also states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, so from my view, this guideline permits the combination of biographical and career coverage over time, and we have more than passing mentions/name drops as well as information that can be used to further develop the article. Also, multiple outlets found her to be noteworthy when they reported her health issues, so it is part of her biography (in the 2021 AfD for this article, I had mentioned this in reference to a part of the WP:ACTOR guideline that has since been removed). A merge/redirect also seems contraindicated by her significant roles in more than one notable production (The Longest Journey and also Dreamfall). Beccaynr (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Beccaynr. Also, WP:GNG specifically states that a subject of an article "does not need to be the main topic of the source material," just so long as it isn't a trivial mention - as in, multiple sentences are dedicated to covering Hamilton specifically. Even though some of the sources don't directly deal with her as the main topic, they still present a multitude of verifiable facts about her background. The Polygon source Beccanyr mentioned dedicates about 500 words about her background, including her experience as a voice actor, her cancer diagnosis and how her reprisal in Dreamfall affected the game developers. Just because the article doesn't have her in the front and center doesn't mean info about her isn't noticeable. How could any reader of that article ignore a large subsection of an article, let alone any reasonable editor consider that 500-word subsection a mere "trivial mention"? She clearly had a significant impact on the development of the game, so much so that the Polygon writer went out of their way to write about her in detail.
The RPS source also doesn't just name-drop her. While yes, it is about voice acting in general, it details info about her experiences as a voice actor as well, establishing her as a notable person in that field. I also counted that about 400 words were dedicated to her in that piece, far surpassing a trivial mention.
Finally, I'm unsure if Just Adventure is a reliable source, but she has full-length articles written about her in The Escapist, Engadget, Eurogamer and another Polygon article. These sources demonstrate that she meets WP:NACTOR not merely through portraying a character in a video game, but with verifiable evidence about her background that goes far beyond a trivial appearance in a couple of works. She snugly meets WP:BASIC and GNG too. PantheonRadiance (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, Hamilton is a voice actor, predominantly known for voicing character April Ryan in The Longest Journey and its sequels Dreamfall: The Longest Journey and Dreamfall Chapters. According to IMDb, she has five roles on IMDb, three of which are voicing Ryan. Behind the Voice Actors lists two roles, again the same character of Ryan.

To go over the sources once more:

  • While mentioned, the Rock Paper Shotgun piece is about voice acting, not about Hamilton specifically. Hamilton is mentioned as portraying Ryan
  • The Just Adventure piece is an interview with The Longest Journey game director Tornquist and mentions Hamilton twice
  • The Polygon piece called "The Longest Journey of Ragnar Tornquist" is about him again, and his work on The Longest Journey. The Hamilton bit is again about her work as Ryan and not having worked much as an other since and her medical issues.
  • The Escapist link is down, but thankfully there's the Wayback Machine. And what is about? It's an update about the crowdfunding campaing, that Hamilton would appear in the then-upcoming Dreamfall Chapters.
  • The following three sources referenced is the same news item by a different outlet. That's WP:CHURNALISM. Note that Hamilton isn't even mentioned by name, everything is in relation to her voicing Ryan
    • Polygon: "The Longest Journey voice actor is seeking help with MS medical bills"
    • Engadget: "Longest Journey voice actor seeking help for medical bills"
    • Eurogamer: "The Longest Journey lead actress needs money for medical expenses"
  • The last reference, Statement Arts' about page, is a primary source and doesn't help with notability.

Perhaps I've missed something. There's the custom WP:VG/RS search engine, through which sources considered reliable by WP:VG can be searched. Looking up "sarah hamilton", there's nothing much else. See Engadget's tag page, it just lists the one article already referenced. Eurogamer Germany has a one line entry: "The Longest Journey. Sarah Hamilton, die Stimme von April Ryan, bittet um finanzielle Unterstützung, um ihre Arztrechnungen bezahlen zu können"), with a link to her GoFundMe. There's a fictional character called Sarah Hamilton in Mystery of Neuschwanstein, mentioned in a review by Touch Arcade. And Hamilton voices a character in This Is the Police II, by Nintendo World Report.

Everything about Hamilton is in relationship to her voicing April Ryan in The Longest Journey video game series. She barely has any other notable work. Even the news about her medical issues are in the tone of "this person who voices that character that you know from that game needs money for her medical expenses". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for pointing out the churnalism instead of knowing this and claiming they're all intellectually independent articles. That is a good faith argument.
* Rock, Paper, Shotgun source: Mix of prose and quotes type-interview with Hamilton. Not independent of the subject and mostly primary source for her.
* Source of unknown reliability, but it's an interview with a Ragnar Tornquist anyways. It is a secondary source but there's really nothing useful. Barely 2 namedrops that Hamilton voices a character named April and is doing a good job.
* Another mixed prose/quotes type-interview mostly Hamilton statements to Polygon talking about herself. Not independent and mostly primary source.
* The medical expenses articles are tragic and thankfully these are secondary sources, but really don't provide much in terms of notability. They give notability to the facet of Hamilton's medical expenses, which hardly makes someone notable.
* I'm not seeing Hamilton mentioned on the Statement Arts about page. Also, if you meant to link to an "affiliated" or "staff" profile that is self-published by the website on the website about her, that is not allowed according to WP:BLPSPS.
The Touch Arcade and Nintendo World Report sources barely mention her. This type of sourcing serves no purpose and does nothing for notability. The bar for notability, especially in AfD discussions, is strikingly low on EN WP but I think we can do a lot better than this.
Overall, I don't see what case can be made for her for WP:NBASIC or other notability criteria. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I don't think BASIC is met here, even by the standard of cobbling together mentions. Coverage of her health issues is one thing, but it's not sustained; you can't assemble more than a stub about the individual. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per David Fuchs. There are a lot of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and just not enough to meet WP:NACTOR. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beccaynr and my comment above. In my opinion, none of the "Delete" arguments seem convincing enough to counter the consensus already presented in the last two AfDs. PantheonRadiance (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing the significant coverage. The medical bill stuff is incredibly sad commentary on the state of modern medical systems...but isn't helping in solidifying her own notability. I recommend merging any of the relevant and reliably sourced content to the April Ryan article to minimize lost content at least. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notwithstanding the reliability or not of sources, like whatever "justadventure.com" is, many of the sources being posted are interviews and the mixed prose/quotes type of content/interviews where the subject is talking about themselves are always non-independent, and largely or fully primary. While it is a common misconception that "sources exist" automatically means notability, WP:NBASIC requires secondary, reliable sources independent of the subject. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of the sources are definitely reliable and secondary coverage. The bigger issue is definitely the lack of significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes the lack of significant coverage is a big issue although many would claim (incorrectly) that the sourcing available is already significant coverage. Many of the sources, such as provided in this AfD, are non-independent. That is what I referring to. Like many other minor figures, Hamilton's notability also suffers from "The life of X according to X" since lots of sourcing is dependent on her. Surprisingly, she has more secondary sourcing than more well-known people I've seen in AfDs do. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Notability is easily established by numerous reliable sources. I’m surprised this article was even nominated. Curntag (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
Hi Curntag, as a registered editor, you've been here a little over 24 hours. I see you've replied randomly on other AfDs as well. Please familiarise yourself with the deletion guideline; you are citing WP:SPEEDYKEEP when it's clear my nomination is not in bad faith or disruptive. What are the numerous reliable sources you speak of? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't cite any "speedy" keep criteria. It's not just something you say for emphasis or just because there are sources in existence... Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 28 December 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Erotica[edit]

Ayesha Erotica (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)

Redirected and PROD contested multiple times. Suspected WP:PROMO. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an unreferenced biography of a living person, which is in itself a compelling reason to delete the article. In its current form, the article says, I'm not a public figure, and I do not want to be an internet celebrity. Whether or not this unreferenced quote is accurate makes no difference. The very existence of this unreferenced quote in a Biography of a living person is another compelling reason to delete the article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a completely unsourced BLP this should be an easy delete. Side note: I just reverted the blatant vandalism/PA on this page by the SPA that turned this redirect back into an article, and would advise keeping an eye out for disruption of this AfD. Blue Edits (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blue Edits: In response to the sidenote, the user is now blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment songs have coverage on NPR [22], which I was not expecting. I think we could cobble together enough of an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read that article? It's a one-paragraph blurb about a song by someone else who has merely collaborated with Ms. Erotica a few times in different songs that are not named therein. No relevance for Ms. Erotica's notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b the coverage you cite here is about someone else. She is merely name checked.ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's simply confirmation she exists, likely not useful for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear failure to meet WP:GNG. Really does look like a promo puff piece. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A singer who released a few songs and now seems to be trying to generate publicity by not making music. I found some discussions about this in Twitter, Reddit, etc. with a few longer blog analyses by nobodies, and they are probably all part of a self-promotion attempt by a wannabe influencer. The rest of the world, including reliable music media, has not noticed. QUOTE OF THE DAY: "at the time I quit, I was the only one who knew I quit." --- Rodney Dangerfield. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, entirely unsourced, and appears promotion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, it’s unsourced. Equine-man (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and unsourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamin Khalifah Fhimah[edit]

Lamin Khalifah Fhimah (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)

Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 07:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Libya. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 07:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every newspaper piece and every book published about the Lockerbie bombing discusses this individual. Most in depth coverage will be from the 1990s but notability is not in question. Mccapra (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep basically per Mccapra. A quick search finds plenty of media attention even within the last few weeks, let alone stuff from the time. ViridaeDON'T PANIC 09:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - no rationale for deletion has been presented Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed deletion due to issues of notability, but I must admit per Mccapra and Viridae I renounce my prior opinion and think it should be kept. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 10:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I will close this one for now. Thanks all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:10, 28 December 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) Natg 19 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Lampton Clemens[edit]

Jane Lampton Clemens (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 mother of Mark Twain, not apparently notable for anything besides that, which means the article fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Waddles 🗩 🖉 06:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, United States of America, Iowa, and Kentucky. Waddles 🗩 🖉 06:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom, I can't find anything notable other than her being the mother of Mark Twain - happy to be enlightened on that front though. ViridaeDON'T PANIC 09:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is a 1964 book written about her (374 pages),[1] and these two sources also contain useful information.[2][3] DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on basis of there being a book written about her, that is a very clear indication of notability: Varble, R. M., Varble, R. (. (1964). Jane Clemens: The Story of Mark Twain's Mother. United States: Doubleday. CT55555(talk) 14:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is the subject of a 1964 biography published by Doubleday, inspiration for the "Aunt Polly" character and included in Mark Twain's writings, [1] subject of numerous scholarly articles referencing her influence on Twain as a writer, [2][3] and subject of significant coverage. [4] DMVHistorian (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Varble, Rachel M. (1964-01-01). Jane Clemens: The story of Mark Twain's mother (1st ed.). Doubleday & Company.
  2. ^ McMillen, Margot (Fall 2020). "Jane Clemens, Slavery, and Abolitionists in Missouri". Mark Twain Journal. 58 (2): 98–121.
  3. ^ Watts, Aretta L. (1928-02-05). "MARK TWAIN'S GAY MOTHER; 'Becky Thatcher' Describes the Woman From Whom He Inherited His Sense of Humor". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-12-28.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deutschland sucht den Superstar (season 2). Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Burmeister[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Judith Burmeister (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:NARTIST. Participated in a TV contest and did not even get to the finals. Performed a song with Systems in Blue but it didn't hit. Bedivere (talk) 05:15, 28 December 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 delete. James of UR (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talking System[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Talking System (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:NBAND Bedivere (talk) 05:12, 28 December 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 Warhammer 40,000#Aeldari. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eldar (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) (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)

Fictional race from WH40K. The article is, unfortunatlely, a mix of pure WP:FANCRUFTy plot summary (referenced to game materials) and a discussion of gameplay (unreferenced, so OR-ish). My BEFORE failed to find anything that's not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Even if someone can find some independent sources, given the state of the article, I think WP:TNT is needed. The best WP:ATD I can think of is redirecting to Warhammer_40,000#Aeldari (on that note, IF this article is kept, it may need to be renamed, per the claim in the WH40K article that the faction name has changed...). PS. This was PRODed in 2020 by User:TTN, then a merge was suggested by User:BOZ to the same target I mentioned; shortly afterward User:Necrothesp declined both the PROD and the MERGE, requesting AfD, so - here we go. Considering that the Warhammer_40,000#Aeldari section is unreferenced, maybe copying some (primary) references from this there would be of some value. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, major fictional faction but that’s about it. Dronebogus (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, fine content to have under Warhammer generally, totally fails to stand on its own though... — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:36, 28 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

María José Cumplido[edit]

María José Cumplido (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)

Unsure this person is notable enough to merit an article. She was a failed candidate for governor of Santiago Region and then again as a member of the Constitutional Convention. She has written a couple of books, but these don't seem notable either. Bedivere (talk) 04:54, 28 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Guigu[edit]

Huang Guigu (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. The article only has one source, an academic book about the Amazons of the Greek epics that spends one short paragraph on this purported Chinese female warrior. The brief and tangential mention does not constitute WP:SIGCOV.

Secondly, a search for WP:BEFORE turns up a few worrying trends - that the book in question cited this website, which in turn was based on this genealogy that was hosted by a professor of applied mathematics. This genealogy is one of three sources named by Mucube (talk · contribs) when they contested the prod, and I posit that this, along with the other two sources, are WP:SELFPUB sources from the Huang family who would repeat family legends as fact. The subject of the article does not feature in contemporary sources of the period. _dk (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Military, and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tried my best to search in Chinese, but was unable to find anything reliable on the person. I find it strange that no sources cover this woman besides one small snippet in a book and a genealogy by a math professor. At best, it is a non-notable genealogical article, at worst it is a complete fiction. The fact that I can't easily tell is troubling. Curbon7 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the genealogy part, it is most likely a fictional work, at best an overexaggerated account of family legends. There are many anachronistic details about Huang Guigu and her contemporaries that just make one question the true reliability of the source. To name a few:
    • One of her brothers named 高 was given the title 兵部尚書. Yet, this title certainly did not exist during Qin-Han periods as the 兵部 would only be established during Sui Tang periods.
    • One of her brothers named 琬 was given the title 鎮南節度使. Again, the infamous 節度使 certainly did not exist during Qin-Han.
    • One of her brothers named 韶 was given the title 鎮國大將軍. And that is not of this time period too......
    With all these important titles and rewards you would expect to see some traces in contemporary Book of Han or Records of the Grand Historian. But as @Underbar dk mentioned, we don't have any of that.
    dk and I also tried to look into the Huang family history books that mentioned her. The 江西黄氏通史 only appeared on genealogy book sites upon searching, and we could not find any reliable information on author, publisher etc. Contact details on the linked site leads to a random shophouse on the map; the only site that can provide an online reading is a Chinese genealogy website and demands 100+ RMB just to read it..... Zhoudadudu (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the source analysis above. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the very thorough work by Zhoudadudu. Mccapra (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Fails to meet WP:GNG. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:41, 28 December 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.


After extended time for discussion there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. That editors are undertaking efforts to improve the page is promising. BD2412 T 01:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil De Luna[edit]

Phil De Luna (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)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a research scientist and non-winning candidate for political office. As always, scientists aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show external validation of the significance of their work in sources that don't have a vested interest, whereas non-winning political candidates are virtually never notable for that per se, and get into Wikipedia only if they can show that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons, but this isn't showing what's required to pass either bar.
This is depending far, far too heavily on primary sources directly affiliated with the subject (e.g. Twitter tweets, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of companies or organizations he's directly affiliated with, pieces of his own bylined writing, etc.), with no evidence shown of the type of third-party sourcing it takes to establish notability as a scientist -- the few reliable sources present here are all either glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite, or run of the mill coverage of his non-winning run for political office.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Environment. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that this was already unsuccessfully nominated for deletion, what is the protocol on double jeopardy? The main claim to notability is the second sentence: "He was named a Forbes 30 under 30 in 2019 and was the youngest-ever director at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC)." He had +40 citations and an adjunct professorship at 30. None of that is a matter of self-publication. I have no comparisons, but this would seem a crack above the average academic. Greenbound (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An article can be put up for deletion more than once, and this article hasn't had an AfD discussion before. A WP:PROD nomination, which I think you're referring to[27], is a different procedure without discussion involved and can be removed by removing the tag on the article. This can be followed by an AfD nomination. "After the proposed deletion is canceled, if you still believe that the page should be deleted, or that a discussion is necessary, it may be listed on Articles for deletion or files for discussion." Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Greenbound (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My understanding is that magazine and newspaper lists generally don't count as notable awards or confer notability. The most notable award appears to be the RSC class of 2021, but few of those members have Wikipedia articles and most that do are easy AfD candidates (Ex: [28]). RSC class membership doesn't appear to have the necessary degree for a BLP's encyclopedic notability, especially as a standalone piece. Much of the available sourcing I can find is primary - what De Luna wrote, what De Luna said, or mini-bios and profiles. On the surface, director at NRC appears notable because the wording in the BLP is ambiguous but on further inspection is not. The NRC is led at the top by the Canadian Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and within the organization by the President, listed as Mitch Davies[29] and Iain Stewart[30] (not to be confused with other Iain Stewarts with Wikipedia articles), which being President of the NRC evidently doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article for these individuals among their other career achievements. De Luna meanwhile is one of the directors within Energy, Engineering and Environment[31] which itself is one piece of NRC. Also the COI editing and promotional tone doesn't help to demonstrate the neutrality or notability of the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We discuss here the notability. Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As we are discussing. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a co-author of [32], 1060 quotations and many other papers in Science, Nature, Nature *. This is written "His articles are well-cited.[8]" but ignored. Summary - quoted 12781 times. Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he satisfies criterion 1 of WP:NPROF by having a copious array of Nature and Science papers, and he satisfies criterion 6 as a director of the National Research Council of Canada. His general-interest output also adds substantially to his relevance for Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAICT he wasn't the director of the NRC, he was a program director -- the Materials for Clean Fuels Challenge Program. That is definitely not sufficient for C6. The article is full of this kind of misleading promotion and should probably be TNT'd. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Brief bio of him here [33], appears not to be a paid piece. There is stuff in Forbes about him, but it's a paid contributor. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. There might be a weak WP:PROF#C1 case here on citations, but any page that starts with "Forbes 30 under 30" needs to be burned to the ground. The position of "youngest to head a research program at the National Research Council" [34] is not what WP:PROF#C6 is about. Advertorial through and through, with no sense of what in a career might actually be noteworthy. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TNT says "this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless". Is it really? Even if 60% deserve to be removed, the text informs. 12 781 quotations, even after a radical review, is not 'might be a weak'. Xx236 (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Today '12798'. Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations are not "quotations". And if only 40% of the text is worth keeping, then it's going to be easier to rewrite the article from scratch rather than try to winnow the wheat from the chaff. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Can find many reliable and independent source about him. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of repeating Bearcat, the "reliable and independent" sourcing out there falls into the precise primary or unreliable categorizations described in the nom like this[35]. There's still the question about establishing notability and the other issues brought up about the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A couple of notes as this unfolded, given that some of the comments relate to my editing. I have never had any problem gutting and reworking this. I can do it myself, in fact, now that I know my way around better. It won't take long. I just read WP:NPROF: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The subject's impact on electrolysis, hydrogen, and materials science is unquestionably top of field. The citation numbers really are enormous for his age. If we want to make it more about that and less about Forbes, sure. It's just that when I drafted it I thought I was doing the right thing leading with such. Also, people are pointing to the crufty stuff, but the Star and Globe are perfectly legitimate for establishing notability and he's cited more than once in both. Greenbound (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect the drive to keep the article alive, but please see WP:OVERCOME. I'm assuming the "top of field" comment is not original research, but where is it said in any detail, nevermind significant, in-depth coverage, that the subject's impact on all those areas is top of field? He has a citation count, but what is the top of field, seemingly historically-defining impact? I don't think people are pointing to the crufty stuff. The Globe and Mail article with its short 'bio' and to a large extent is quotes and the Toronto Star article barely mentioning he lost an election do not establish notability and are among the broad sourcing that the nomination pointed out as a core issue. Issues with the misleading and promotional nature of the article have been demonstrated by multiple editors. As an uncontroversial example, we can look at Nikola Tesla and the hundreds of books and studies about every part of his life and work published in overwhelming detail in many languages, and Tesla didn't benefit from the internet era mass media and COI editing to demonstrate notability either.
    I think the question to think about is, how does an article highlighting De Luna and 49 other subjectively "notable" people (who from those I checked, none have Wikipedia articles) including company CEOs and an article mentioning a lost election establish notability per Wikipedia's standards? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Elemimele has already said this well. Criterion 1 doesn't ask for historically-defining. It asks for a significant impact. He has 25 publications in Nature and Science and 13,000 citations. There's not an academic alive that wouldn't consider this a stupendous output. There are dozens of press mentions fulfilling the last portion of the criterion.
    Here's my take. Phil De Luna is obviously a pretty self-promotional guy. Self-promotion is annoying. Hence people find this article annoying and want to see it scrubbed. Which, as I say, is partly my fault. I am not being glib -- it's a perfectly understandable response. But on science career alone the notability is clear. Tesla sets a pretty high bar. Visit this category and compare. De Luna is perfectly in keeping with other Canadian materials scientists that have articles. And it would surely be a disservice to Wiki to argue all of those should be deleted. Greenbound (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In its current state, criteria 1 is not met because of 2 problems: 1. The big one is the article is missing the "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" part. We need in-depth independent reliable sources regarding criteria 1, which have not yet been provided and right now this is original research. Criteria 1 is not currently met. 2. Policy is vague on this, but he is not a primary author in many of the papers. For example, this paper has 25(!) listed authors, but only 3 with *'s are attributed equally as the primary author (not including De Luna) and 2 are faculty/PIs and PI(s) are always at the end. Author names are usually ordered by contribution, and on this one, De Luna is almost at the end. "Gift" authorship is an issue in academia and from looking through the published papers, De Luna's citation count has benefited substantially from this.
    Do you have reliable, secondary, detailed sourcing that can help establish that this criteria is met?
    Since we currently don't have independent reliable sourcing, I'll note the Google's 12832 count is not necessarily accurate. For the paper I linked, Google says 1700 but the paper on Science says 1206. Counting together papers in which De Luna is the primary author or listed as primary "equal contributor", De Luna has 4261 citations, a far cry from the 13000 claimed in this discussion.
    Pinging @XOR'easter for their input on the claim that the Wikipedia article meets criteria 1, given their expertise in scientific academia and this Wikipedia policy.
    The second paragraph in your comment includes original research about De Luna's personality and WP:IDHT. No one has characterized this article as annoying. The lack of reliable sourcing and notability, and the advertorializing and and other issues have all been demonstrated. Other articles existing is not a legitimate defense for this one to exist. Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. Some of those articles in that category are good AfD candidates too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Saucysalsa. I'd rather not continue talking to you. I will rewrite the article and present per other's suggestions. Greenbound (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck! Glad we're aligned. As it currently stands, none of the notability criteria is met. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saucysalsa30: this is an interesting point that needs clarification at WP:NPROF. The issue is that the very existence of Nature and Science papers of itself constitutes independent reliable sourcing that he has been influential because these journals always consult multiple reviewers independent of the author before they accept anything for publication, and these journals are the most influential available. I know it can be argued that I'm synthesising, but I'm not synthesising in a Wikipedia article. I'm just pointing out that if we need a measure of how influential a scientist is, and a measure that they can't influence by self-promotion, only by being influential, the sheer number of Nature and Science papers they've authored is genuinely accurate. Elemimele (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele: Correct. His academic CV in itself meets criterion 1. We don't need CNN to subsequently tell us "this is a significant scientific output." But insofar as everyone seems to want that, consult the press listings on his site. There are +70 total, numerous of which any Canadian would recognize as a credible third party (Star, Globe, Global, CBC, TVO etc.) Notability is not the issue here; the self-promotional language is. Greenbound (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are also correct that this should be taken up at the guideline. "He was a Clarivate Highly Cited Researcher, being among the top 1% of scientists cited in his field worldwide." If I go and add that to the first or second sentence someone will tell me it's self-promotional. And yet it seems to be the kind of explicit proof that's expected here. It's a little bit damned if you do, damned if you don't. Anyhow, I have taken it to the sandbox. Greenbound (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the very existence of Nature and Science papers of itself constitutes independent reliable sourcing that he has been influential because these journals always consult multiple reviewers independent of the author before they accept anything for publication, and these journals are the most influential available. No, it doesn't. Mere publication is not the same as influence, regardless of the journal. It might be less likely that a Nature or Science article will sink into obscurity, but it's still possible. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I know it can be argued that I'm synthesising, but I'm not synthesising in a Wikipedia article" If we need (what I assume is well-intentioned, and the policy has ambiguity) synthesis/original research in how we interpret notability guidelines to this extent, then there likely isn't a case to be made for WP:NPROF. Minimally, the papers his name is on aren't independent considering he contributed to them.
    As an aside, I agree about "gift authorship" needing clarification on WP:NPROF. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that this AfD highlights some of the difficulties in interpreting WP:NPROF, so I've attempted to prompt a review of the criteria at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Is_it_time_we_reviewed_the_NPROF_criteria?. I hope this is okay, and invite all. Elemimele (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I don't think this AfD speaks much to any ambiguity or difficulty with WP:PROF at all. The question is what to do with a page where there might be a notability argument on one ground or another when the text of the page is an advertorial, unencyclopedic, LinkedIn-fest. That can happen for academics, authors, restauranteurs, whoever. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough. Although I !voted keep, I agree completely that the article looks a bit promotional and like a CV. I'm in favour of pruning rather than TNT deletion (AfD not clean-up, but my personal bar for TNT deletions instead of clean-up is probably higher than average). I'll leave the question at NPROF open as a general matter in case it throws up anything useful. Elemimele (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The good news is that we're not dealing with some 5,000-word monster that will take weeks of improvement. Greenbound (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. My only comment is that I'd taken from the discussion that the article was in the process of being rewritten but it doesn't look like any substantial changes have been made over the past week. A reminder that this AFD discussion can be closed at any time when a closer judges a policy-based consensus exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some serious additions are made, a delete is in order. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, content certainly seems like a COI or pay-for-play here. Advertisorial. Sourcing barely sufficient if at all. Delete. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: went ahead and replaced with slimmed down version. Crufty sources should be gone. Greenbound (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, a thanks to GreenBound for making the effort to revise the article.[36] Following the changes, I made a short analysis on sources on the Talk page.[37][38] From these, I think a few can help towards establishing notability in line with WP:NBASIC and WP:NPROF, namely [39] but which isn't entirely independent of the subject, and to some extent the Clarivate page[40] although it doesn't have anything specific to say about De Luna, and the two pages from his university. It may just be me, but it still reads like a resume-like or promotional piece, mainly because of the nature of the sourcing. Regarding NPROF criteria, there's a related extended discussion going on here. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:38, 30 December 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. Daniel (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AAACN Viewpoint[edit]

AAACN Viewpoint (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 journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Nanosci (talk) 03:57, 28 December 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. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I due evasi di Sing Sing[edit]

I due evasi di Sing Sing (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. PROD removed with "remove PROD. Notable director, notable comedic duo, Deserves an AfD at the very least."

Tagged for Notability DonaldD23 talk to me 03:49, 28 December 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. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Daddy[edit]

Killing Daddy (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. PROD removed with "Perhaps we can put this through AFD instead." DonaldD23 talk to me 03:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – In general, modern TV movies usually do not get enough coverage to justify standalone articles (see WP:NTVFILM). But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise in the case of this particular TV movie – based on who stars in it, and its campy subject matter, it may have gotten some coverage, post-release, and so may actually be notable. But somebody is going to need to produce the sources to prove this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reviews of the film, no mentions of it beyond tv listings. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG based on lack of WP:SIGCOV. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doubtful it had any notice outside of Liz Gilles and maybe Cynthia Stevenson. Nate • (chatter) 00:55, 29 December 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. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

African Messiah[edit]

African Messiah (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed by creator with a few citations added, but all are about the release or actors in the film. Zero in depth reviews DonaldD23 talk to me 03:46, 28 December 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. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kisse Pyaar Karoon[edit]

Kisse Pyaar Karoon (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as I couldn't find any reviews in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "AFD it if you like. I see reviews by Bollywood Hungama and the likes. Just don't have time to edit it at the moment".

I couldn't find the review that was referred to above. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - reviews added, and BO information as well. The nominator might want to consider withdrawing the nomination. Shahid • Talk2me 15:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, sources seem weak. See if more can be added, then I'd move to keep. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 21:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moops: Please explain what's weak about the Hindustan Times, one of the leading newspapers in India which has been in print for almost a century and reviews this film; about the most notable entertainment web portal for Hindi cinema Bollywood Hungama with a review written by a notable critic Taran Adarsh, among others. I understand you're not aware of them for obvious reasons, but it doesn't mean they're weak. Shahid • Talk2me 12:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per updates, I'll amend my comment to Keep, for the record, I said 'Weak Delete' meaning that I was amenable to a keep if we could makes changes as done now. Please Keep. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the newly added reviews by Shahid, I now believe this film passes WP:NFILM and I change my opinion to Keep DonaldD23 talk to me 16:23, 29 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partha Tripura Jewel[edit]

Partha Tripura Jewel (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. I prod'd the page and the prod was removed with explanation. TartarTorte 02:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been added with references from reliable source 2401:1900:2041:7BB6:E89E:8003:FC5B:1D07 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC) TartarTorte 21:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw Centrepoint[edit]

Shaw Centrepoint (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)

Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for WP:SOFTDELETE as a previously declined PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Insufficient sourcing, fails WP:GNG. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:14, 28 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Entertainment Corporation[edit]

Diamond Entertainment Corporation (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 found no significant coverage for this company. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 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 List of Netflix original programming. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

72 Dangerous Animals: Latin America[edit]

72 Dangerous Animals: Latin America (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 notability. WP:BEFORE yielded no results or reviews Carpimaps (talk) 01:31, 28 December 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 University of Florida. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Courtelis Award[edit]

Alec Courtelis 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)

Fails Notability. This award is awarded, but there are no reliable independent sources of information regarding it. ZsinjTalk 01:30, 28 December 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. I would ordinarily turn this into a redirect but the article in question says that this series is no longer carried by Netflix. If that changes, we can revisit this closure. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

72 Dangerous Animals: Australia[edit]

72 Dangerous Animals: Australia (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 television documentary does not pass WP:GNG, a search for sources only found database listings covering it, and database listings are also the only source currently in the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My Search yielded no significant coverage or reviews of this documentary. Carpimaps (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Netflix original programming per screenrant https://screenrant.com/netflix-animal-documentary-movie-streaming/ "This series of documentaries didn’t start as a Netflix original series, but Netflix then took it up. The first in the series is set in Australia and goes over the most deadly and frightening animals to be found on that continent. Netflix has also made two more versions of the show, one set in Latin America and one set in Asia." Lacks critical reception and significant coverage analysis, so redirecting to the lists would be appropriate. Whether it's an ended or current series can be determined. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep don't understead what the diffrent of the other programs in the "72 franchise" (and this article was red until it writen). this one of Netflix / National Geographic program that writen like many close in the, at base on the available sources. this not very very short article and when its not enough sources, its do the possible scope level. what its different from another "72 franchise" program? its just more program. יערוניק (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, insufficient coverage found to merit keeping. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:27, 28 December 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! 21:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malí velcí podvodníci[edit]

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

Article about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim being attempted here is that it exists, and the only source present is a primary source directory listing of the entire filmography of an actor who was purportedly in the cast, except that even that filmography list fails to contain this film title at all. And while the same site does contain an entry for a film of this same title, it's merely the Czech-language title of the 1990s American film The White River Kid, with no other evidence in that directory of a 1938 film of this title with Josef Kemr in it at all. To be fair, that doesn't necessarily prove all by itself that this film doesn't even exist, but it does raise questions.
As I can't read Czech and don't have access to archived Czech media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to such resources can find some coverage to properly verify that this actually existed -- but just using a single primary source isn't sufficient in and of itself, especially when that primary source doesn't even verify it in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 28 December 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. The consensus is to Delete, not to Draftify. If the article creator wants this content restored and moved to Draft space or User space, contact me. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Quartz[edit]

Crystal Quartz (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:BLP1E of a person with no indication of sustained notability that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. The subject is a drag entertainer, who was briefly in their local news a couple of weeks ago for having a show cancelled due to online threats -- but apart from one glancing namecheck of Crystal Quartz's existence in a Toronto Star article about viral videos that isn't otherwise about Crystal Quartz in any non-trivial sense, the referencing here is otherwise entirely local to the Guelph/Kitchener-Waterloo region. (That goes even for the event cancellation itself, because even the CBC hit is not from the national news division of the CBC, but from its local news bureau in Kitchener-Waterloo, and thus does not represent "nationalizing" coverage.)
One cancelled show just isn't grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia in and of itself, and purely local referencing isn't sufficient to claim that they would pass WP:GNG instead of having to accomplish something more significant than just having one show cancelled. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Sexuality and gender, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess it got some attention, [41] from the local CTV affiliate and this [42], provincial educational broadcaster, much like a PBS; there is some coverage, but I think it might either be TOOSOON or BLP1E. Unsure about this one. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since your comment, I found more recent and ongoing coverage and added that in, I mention in case it helps your assessment. CT55555(talk) 14:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as article creator) Subject has got news coverage for two things in 2021 and again in 2022 so not one event, the essay WP:NOTBLP1E explains clearly why BLP1E does not apply. The comment that the news is only local is not important, no policy depreciates local news. Subject clearly passes WP:BASIC CT55555(talk) 03:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is not about indiscriminately counting all the things the person has ever done, it's about counting how many of the things the person has done constitute potential reasons why an encyclopedia article might be warranted. Since the 2021 coverage is exclusively local coverage in local-interest contexts that don't pass any notability criteria, none of it is "notable events" for the purposes of escaping BLP1E. It's BLP1-=notable-E, not BLP1-any-E. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any policy or guidance supports your suggestion that local coverage is worth less, but please tell me if I'm wrong. CT55555(talk) 22:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage isn't entirely inadmissible in Wikipedia, no, but it isn't necessarily enough all by itself to hand a person a "fails all SNGs but is notable anyway because media coverage exists" pass. GNG isn't just "count all the media hits and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number", but rather it does consider factors like the geographic range of the coverage and the context of what the person is getting coverage for: for example, county councillors and local fire and police chiefs don't all get a free pass over GNG just because they have some local coverage; restaurateurs don't all get into Wikipedia just because they've been in their local media two or three times; local musicians who haven't accomplished anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC don't automatically get into Wikipedia just because Sarah Liss reviewed their debut concert at Lee's Palace for Now; a child actor who gets their first small part in a film doesn't automatically pass NACTOR just because their local paper profiles them; and my mother's former neighbour didn't get a Wikipedia article just because she got some local coverage in the context of waking up one morning to find a pig in her front yard. But conversely, if a person actually has an "inherent" notability claim (Member of Parliament, winner of national literary or music or film award that passes WRITER or NFILM or NMUSIC, etc.), then we don't worry about the balance between national and local coverage at all since the context of what they're being covered for unequivocally clears the bar.
Basically, the less "inherent" the basic notability claim is, the more you have to show evidence that they're actually getting more than just "local person does stuff" coverage in their hometown media. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable, or at least change the name as "Crystal Quartz" here as nothing to do with Crystals or Quartz and is confusing. "Crystal Quartz" might also be needed for article that is about Quartz. --Bduke (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a disambiguation link to Quartz to resolve your concern. CT55555(talk) 01:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think it does.--Bduke (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The news coverage is ongoing, as recently as the 19 December. As are protests, which are also making the news and attracting counter-protests. A politician cited threats towards the article subject in a call for parliament to take more action. The "10 year test" is an essay, although if this does indeed persuade government to change policy, this will be notable in 10 years. All that said, once something is notable, that is not a temporary thing, so the essay on 10 years, in my opinion is at odds with the guideline: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Anyay,WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are the policy, which calls for multiple, independent sources with significant coverage and so I hope people !vote based on policy and guidance and consider the ongoing and updated coverage the subject is getting that I added just in the past few minutes. CT55555(talk) 14:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not extended based on what might become true in the future; it is extended based solely on what's already true today. The question is, if the person never accomplishes another thing so long as they live, such that what's already true today is the absolute peak of their potential notability, then is what's already true today already enough that we can already presume that the ten year test will be passed just by what's already true today. If that can't already be answered in the affirmative just by what's already true today, then we don't keep the article just because it's possible to theorize that something more notable might happen in the future — it's always possible to theorize that everything might become more notable in the future than it already is now, so we would never be able to delete anything at all if just speculating about possible future notability increases were enough to forestall deletion. Rather, we delete the article and then permit future recreation if and when something more notable has actually happened. If legislation to better protect drag performers actually gets passed, then that might be something — but just having their name cited in a legislative speech asking for the drafting of legislation that hasn't actually been drafted or presented or passed isn't a magic permanent notability maker. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with the new sources added. Ideally, I'd like to see the gov't actually do something to protect such performances, that would also help bolster the case for GNG here if legislation gets changed, for example. It's just enough for GNG now. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What triggered the writing of this recent Wikipedia article? Looking at the article start date it's likely to be the media coverage of the drag show protest. If the protest is a notable event perhaps there should be an article about that. Or, details of the protest could be added into an article about discrimination/protests about drag artists in Ontario or Canada, see WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Establishing a biographical article for this subject is much WP:TOOSOON.
The Toronto Star source is a mere mention of the subject as part of an article on a separate subject and therefore does not amount to significant coverage, see WP:PSEUDO. Rupples (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed the protests that caught my attention and prompted me to start this article. The second thing I did was check if the subject made news in previous years, to avoid the BLP1E situation, of course a different interpretation of BLP1E above has taken this conversation down that route anyway. While I argue to keep, I appear to be in a minority so far. In case it ends with that being consensus opinions, then I would support your point that this protests are notable:
  1. https://xtramagazine.com/culture/ontario-drag-events-targeted-241510
  2. https://www.tvo.org/article/i-dont-feel-safe-ontario-drag-performers-reckon-with-heightened-risk
  3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/crystal-quartz-drag-show-brunch-1.6674187
  4. https://globalnews.ca/news/9339516/penticton-drag-show-protest/
  5. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/drag-queen-storytime-sarnia-1.6683295
CT55555(talk) 15:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 Appreciate the tone of your reply. 'Fraid, it doesn't alter my delete !vote, but the links you provided and further searches have made me aware of protests targeting other drag artists e.g. in library storytelling sessions, and are more widespread than I initially thought. Rupples (talk) 22:46, 28 December 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 Windows 10 version history#Version 21H1 (May 2021 Update) as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 11:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 version 21H1[edit]

Windows 10 version 21H1 (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)

Should this article exist as a separate article, or should it be redirected? There is recently some edit warring between a redirect and an article, so whether the article should be redirected or not needs to be discussed at AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing proves that this specific update is notable for it's own separate article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not why this stable build is better than any other version; sources are all strictly from Microsoft. Software gets updated all the time and failing any critical discussion of a particularly good or bad version of a build, I don't think we need one for this version. What happens when the next stable build comes out? We delete this version? Five versions in the future, do we still need a description of this build? It seems futile and more suited for a technical blog than wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Windows 10 version history#Version 21H1 (May 2021 Update) It's no longer supported so it should go into summary form at this point; nothing needed to merge. Nate • (chatter) 03:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b above. --Bduke (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: should the page be deleted or redirected then other software versions pages (windows 10 (original release)–windows 10 version 20H2) must be deleted or redirected as well (these include windows 10 version 21H2, windows 11 version 21H2, windows 10 version 22H2 & windows 11 version 22H2). Furthermore, this isn't the first time such article is nominated for deletion; it had happened several months ago with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 10 (original release).41.62.148.55 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous AfD consensus on this issue earlier this year which in itself was based upon another AfD consensus in 2018. The recommended course of action at the time was to split the original version history into individual articles for each release; the fact that the opposite is being suggested two years later by uninvolved editors who failed to make an effort to understand the background of how these articles came about is baffling. Notability concerns raised above by Onegreatjoke, Oaktree b, and MrSchimpf are clearly invalid and has been disproved on numerous occasions in previous AfD discussions; one can easily find articles from independent reliable sources that are specifically written for every major version of Windows 10. Just because they aren't cited within the article doesn't render the topic unnotable per se (see WP:NEXIST). Hayman30 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I argued for a redirect as the information in the version history article is a carbon copy of what is contained here, and fits just fine within that article. I am not arguing for deletion, but preservation of the details, nor dismissing it per WP:N, just that it's now historical under Microsoft's definition rather than an active and contemporary software version, and it should be accounted for as such within the Win10 version history article rather than within its own article. Nate • (chatter) 00:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf: Having a carbon copy of the contents within the original section is the point of this seperate article. The reason that individual articles were created was to reduce the size of the version history article; only currently supported versions (21H2 and 22H2) are kept on the full version history, while unsupported builds are moved to their own articles. If the result of this AfD is keep, the identical information in Windows 10 version history#Version 21H1 (May 2021 Update) would be removed and a Main article template would be added, linking to Windows 10 version 21H1. Please take a look at all other sections on Windows 10 version history before Version 21H1 (May 2021 Update). Hayman30 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Or perhaps moving all of those subpages back to the original article, except those versions which were released with LTSB/LTSC editions (1507/1607/1809/21H2) because they will be displaying a long list of updates indeed.102.158.3.193 (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per User:Hayman30, and the fact that all of the non-keep arguments appear to be invalid:
    • The arguments about "this specific version" don't make sense because most versions of Windows 10 have standalone articles.
    • The version being "no longer supported" isn't relevant per WP:NTEMP.
    • The nomination doesn't even propose deletion, only redirection, so without an explanation as to why the article shouldn't be redirected instead a "delete" !vote here doesn't make sense to begin with.
Having said that, I feel the whole question of what to do with Windows 10's version history needs to be looked at again, because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 10 version history was decided back when it was commonly thought it was "the last version of Windows". But nominating a single, lesser-known version for a debate that is highly unlikely to attract much participation isn't the way to do it. Modernponderer (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops and HeliosSunGod: Having seperate article for this release make perfect sense as it's no longer supported. Only supported versions are kept on Windows 10 version history, while sections for previous versions are written in summary style with a {{Main}} template linking to the subtopic article. If the result of this AfD is keep, duplicate content in Windows 10 version history#Version 21H1 (May 2021 Update) would be removed as per the edit request made on the article's talk page, which is currently on hold pending AfD consensus. Hayman30 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be a Delete if not for the option to Redirect. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ATD Redirect: A short two sentence lead and a paragraph, making a glorified dictionary entry, does not advance notability for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. 96.18.102.242 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Future Group for People with Disabilities[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bright Future Group for People with Disabilities (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)

Last AfD was 12 years ago. I still believe this fails WP:ORG. Many of the sources provided in previous AfD come up with 404 errors. There is a complete lack of coverage for an organization that has existed for over 30 years. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We need someone who can competently search for and evaluate possible sources in Vietnamese. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it is indeed frustrating that the article has not been updated much since it was last nominated for deletion 12 years ago, a significant new source that has become available is the Wells-Dang book, Civil Society Networks in China and Vietnam: Non-Governmental Public Action, which dedicates an entire chapter to Bright Future Group for People with Disabilities, in addition to comparing and contrasting it with other organizations in later chapters. The book is published by Palgrave Macmillan and is accessible through SpringerLink/Wikipedia Library. Bright Future Group continues to be in the public eye nationally, thanks to initiatives such as its involvement in a 2016–2017 project on accessibility of tourist destinations (covered in multiple publications including Hanoi Times and Vietnam Investment Review. I've also added a notability claim (one of the first grassroots organizations/first self-help organization formed by people with disabilities in Vietnam) citing UNESCO and a book published by University of California Press. The article still needs more work, and it would be great if someone with language knowledge/access could add sources in Vietnamese, but anyway it's better than it was before. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 28 December 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. I am very cognizant of the high tensions arising in this topic area. However, there is a clear and well-argued preponderance of support for keep. The listing has been open for over a month, and I find that relisting would not be appropriate. This closure does not preclude the article being merged or redirected in the future; it would be wise to seek consensus for that in the article talk page. As with all my AFD closures, I considered this carefully before closing and will not be changing this based on any talk page discussion; if you wish to contest this closure please go directly to DRV. I waive any requirement to consult with me beforehand. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This article was moved during the period of the AFD. Moving articles whilst they are on deletion discussion is highly discouraged as it has a tendency to cause deletion closing scripts to malfunction. I believe I have correctly closed and updated all pages but if I have missed something out, assistance in resolving same would be appreciated. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921[edit]

Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921 (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 a neologism built on original research and is also partly a fork of Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia.

The article relies on unreliable sources such as a Turkish tourism website and genocide deniers like Justin McCarthy and Maxime Gauin. The Soviet historiography can be disregarded entirely as outdated propaganda, because the Bolsheviks were opponents of the ARF and the ARF was banned in the Soviet Union (source). This is proven by the Taner Akçam source declaring these "massacres" to be exaggerated or outright fabrications. Akcam is a modern and esteemed scholar, and has more due weight.

And the few sources that are reliable don't support the idea of a 4 year ethnic cleansing campaign of Azerbaijanis. In fact, it seems various sources don't even confirm what they are cited for. Page 75 of the Thomas de Waal source doesn't say anything that could be interpreted as "ethnic cleansing was caused by the loyalty and favour of the Azerbaijanis to the Ottoman Turks". This closest thing the citation may be referring to is this: "In their place, Armenian refugees and peasants were immediately settled in the abandoned houses and land. In this way, Azerbaijanis became the collateral victims of the Young Turks' genocidal policies of 1915." The idea that Azerbaijanis were ever ethnic cleansed for their "loyalty and favour" is unsourced and entirely made up. Dallavid (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the following points:
  • The article relies on unreliable sources such as a Turkish tourism website and genocide deniers like Justin McCarthy and Maxime Gauin
All three of those sources have since been removed since bringing them to my attention, and the tourism website and McCarthy source were not even on the article at the same time, contrary to your implication.
  • The Soviet historiography can be disregarded entirely as outdated propaganda, because the Bolsheviks were opponents of the ARF and the ARF was banned in the Soviet Union
Dismissing the historiography of the state which Armenia was a part of for most the 20th century because you perceive it to be "propaganda" is rash and baseless – the Soviet sources cited are by historians who have conducted detailed investigations into the ethnographic situation and changes in Armenia, even on a village-by-village level as in the case of Zaven Korkotyan's work (which is the source of historical village populations in the official index of settlements published by the Armenian government, see page 4).
  • This is proven by the Taner Akçam source declaring these "massacres" to be exaggerated or outright fabrications.
It's not "proven", rather, contended by Akçam (incase you didn't notice, I even made a mention of Akçam's perspective so as to give due weight to all relevant historiography about the massacres of Azerbaijanis).
  • And the few sources that are reliable don't support the idea of a 4 year ethnic cleansing campaign of Azerbaijanis.
I think you should re-read the article because that's definitely not the case: reliable authors such as Jörg Baberowski attest to the destruction of 199 villages and expulsion of 100,000 by the Russian army and Armenian volunteers between August 1917 and March 1918. As for the massacres lasting until 1921, Thomas de Waal writes that Armenian partisan commander and Nazi-collaborator Garegin Nzhdeh drove "out the last of its (Syunik's) Azerbaijani population" in 1921. The example you cited that was unsourced has also since been removed as I have misplaced its relevant citation and mistakenly put the wrong author/page, in any case, one sentence with a wrong citation is not grounds to delete an entire article which has been written according to Wikipedia standards. – Olympian loquere 09:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at the third party sources that are allegedly cited for "massacres". Broers(p.4) doesn't mentioned Andranik, Nzhdeh, "re-Armenianization", Zangezur, or any massacre of Azeris at all. De Waal(p.129) only mentions expelling. Zakharov(pp. 105–106) just says expulsion, not massacre. This is a recurring issue with all the credible sources you've gathered: none of them support your thesis statement that "Azerbaijanis in Armenia were ethnically cleansed on a large scale throughout 1917–1921"; at best they refer to the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, which I've already explained that this article is a fork of. Which is probably why the sources generally refer to destruction of villages, not people. But you cited these authors just before several Azeri and genocide denier sources claiming thousands of Azeris were massacred, falsely portraying these sources to make the same claim. I've also read the whole Ovsepyan source, no mention of "widespread massacres of Muslims in Armenia". Kaufman(58) makes no mention of Ottoman Armenians, Muslims in Armenia, or "widespread massacres". Just a brief mention of an "era of massacres" for both people, without mentioning specific dates or locations.
WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS, if the only reliable source from the past half century mentioning what the Soviet historiography claimed is also declaring it to be fabrications, then it likely is. As WP:WEIGHT says, if something was largely accepted as true, it would be easy to find many reliable sources confirming it. But it seems you couldn't find any better than genocide deniers.
Jörg Baberowski is a Clean Wehrmacht revisionist and is known for physically attacking his colleagues,[44] where did you get the idea he is reliable? Did you even read the criticism section of the article you linked? This further proves the article was built on crackpot unreliable sources, in addition to citations that just fail verification. --Dallavid (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recurring issue with all the credible sources you've gathered: none of them support your thesis statement that "Azerbaijanis in Armenia were ethnically cleansed on a large scale throughout 1917–1921"
I urge you to re-read the sources you claimed to have taken a "closer look at". Broers source, page 4:
"Reliable numbers are elusive, but Ottoman Turkish–Azerbaijani forces killed or drove out many thousands of Armenians from Nakhichevan, while Armenian militias visited a similar fate upon Azerbaijani Muslims in Zangezur."
The de Waal source (which you say only mentions expelled) is used to implicate Andranik (per source) and to support the sentence "expulsion of tens of thousands", pages 80 & 128:
"In 1918–1920, tens of thousands of Azerbaijanis were expelled from Zangezur … In Zangezur, across the mountains to the east, the ferocious Armenian guerrilla commander known as Andranik swept through the region, burning Azerbaijani villages and expelling their inhabitants"
Zakharov very clearly references ethnic cleansing, thereby supporting the content it is cited for; page 105–106:
"'Njdeh … led the defence of Zangezur, in 1921, which led to the cleansing and expulsion of the region’s local Azeri minority'"
… falsely portraying these sources to make the same claim
Another baseless accusation – the sources each individually and directly point to the fact that the Azerbaijani population was eradicated from Armenia enmasse, consisting of the destruction of hundreds of villages, the deportation of tens of thousands, and the massacre of thousands.
I've also read the whole Ovsepyan source, no mention of "widespread massacres of Muslims in Armenia".
This is a Russian-language source; meaning no offence, but in past discussions, you've demonstrated a poor ability to sufficiently interpret Russian (it seems as though you're relying solely on an automated translator such as Yandex or Google), so I'll quote and translate the relevant part for you:
Original: "При дашнакском владычестве в Армении он дашнакским правительством использовался по военной линии, т. е. возглавлял военное дело в Зангезуре, сперва по усмирению местных азербайджанцев, скорее, по очищению территории от азербайджанцев …"
Translated: "During the Dashnakutyun's rule over Armenia, he [Nzhdeh] was tasked by the Dashnak government in a military capacity to command the military affairs in Zangezur, initially to pacify the local Azerbaijanis, instead, clearing the territory [Zangezur] from Azerbaijanis …"
Kaufman(58) makes no mention of Ottoman Armenians, Muslims in Armenia, or "widespread massacres".
Contrary to your claim, Kaufman very clearly explains the state of Azerbaijanis in Armenia and references their massacres at the hands of Armenians, page 58:
"Thus Azerbaijanis were a threatened and oppressed minority in Armenia and Mountainous Karabagh—the "era of massacres" included massacres of Azerbaijanis by Armenians"
WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS, if the only reliable source from the past half century mentioning what the Soviet historiography claimed is also declaring it to be fabrications, then it likely is.
That is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts, recent sources you've mentioned such as de Waal, Broers, Zakharov, Ovsepyan, et al all support the idea of an ethnic cleansing campaign against Azerbaijanis in Armenia, particularly in Zangezur as I've exhaustively and comprehensively quoted above.
Jörg Baberowski is a Clean Wehrmacht revisionist and is known for physically attacking his colleagues
So because an author reacted poorly to harassment and supports a certain notion regarding the German army, we should immediately dismiss all his works regarding the Caucasus? you're going to have to provide a more sufficient line of reasoning than that to not cite his works.
This further proves the article was built on crackpot unreliable sources, in addition to citations that just fail verification
Throughout your reply you've utterly misrepresented the cited content to make it seem as though this is the case, contrary to what I have just proven that every source supports the content it is cited for. So instead of saying this is a "recurring issue" you need to read more carefully before making these allegations, because evidently you haven't and therefore your accusations are unsubstantiated. The article cannot be a "fork" due to the reasoning I explained to ZaniGiovanni: "due to the enormous amount of information available on these particular massacres, I believe it easily passes the threshold for notability insofar-as meriting its own article", moreover, the article supports the idea of massacres being involved, not just deportations. – Olympian loquere 00:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving me correct in that the Broers, De Waal, Zakharov, and Ovsepyan sources only mention expulsions and, more importantly, none of them endorse the "through the massacre of 7,729–10,000 Azerbaijani Muslims" claim that you cited them for. Yes the Kaufman source uses the M-word, but this one throw-away sentence is all there is in the entire book; there is no mention of years (such as "1917-1921"), locations, or really any context. And that means "the influx of Ottoman Armenian refugees resulted in widespread massacres of Muslims in Armenia" bit you cited it for is entirely original research.
"recent sources you've mentioned such as de Waal, Broers, Zakharov, Ovsepyan, et al all support the idea of an ethnic cleansing campaign against Azerbaijanis in Armenia"
None of those sources use the terms "ethnic cleansing" or "campaign", that is more original research. As I've said several times already, the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia is what these events are describing.
"So because an author reacted poorly to harassment and supports a certain notion regarding the German army, we should immediately dismiss all his works regarding the Caucasus?"
"Certain notion regarding the German army" is a funny way to describe Holocaust denial. And even overlooking that, Baberowski making outlandish claims that only Armenian genocide deniers make is good enough reason not to cite him
"due to the enormous amount of information available on these particular massacres"
So far you have only provided 1 decent source using the term "massacre": one sentence in an entire book that makes no mention of time or place. And keep in mind that the reliable source going into the greatest detail on this subject also confirms that it's largely a fabrication. --Dallavid (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving me correct
You're mistaken, I corrected you, not proved you correct. For the third time, I advise you to read the article and see that there are numerous sources that attest to massacre: For example, the 1990 Balayev source that cites its 7,729 number from the Soviet archives.
As I've said several times already, the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia is what these events are describing.
And what I've explained to you "several times already" is that these were not just deportations, but also massacres, see the above point.
"Certain notion regarding the German army" is a funny way to describe Holocaust denial.
I think you should read the very content that you wikilinked, Clean Wehrmacht, which you allege Baberovski supports, refers to a "notion" that the German army was uninvolved in the Holocaust, not that the Holocaust didn't occur. At this point it's hard to tell if you're intentionally misrepresenting facts or you're just jumping to type the first unfiltered thought in your head.
And keep in mind that the reliable source going into the greatest detail on this subject also confirms that it's largely a fabrication.
You need to go back to the Taner Akçam source and read that when he states “exaggerated or outright fabrications”, it's in reference to reports by Ottoman commanders of massacres against Turks in Erzurum (i.e. Western Armenia) which is entirely irrelevant to the massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia. Therefore, your point that Akçam's perspective somehow prevails over the other sources is redundant. – Olympian loquere 08:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the 1990 Balayev source that cites its 7,729 number from the Soviet archives.
The Balayev source is not credible on it's own, we need reliable third-party sources. And since Balayev is a supporter of the Caucasian Albanians revisionist theory, he isn't even a reliable source in general. As you will see further down, Akcam proved why these figures from WP:PRIMARY sources are often inventions and not credible.
And what I've explained to you "several times already" is that these were not just deportations, but also massacres, see the above point.
You have not provided a single reliable source calling them massacres, you're just repeating yourself at this point.
I think you should read the very content that you wikilinked, Clean Wehrmacht, which you allege Baberovski supports, refers to a "notion" that the German army was uninvolved in the Holocaust, not that the Holocaust didn't occur.
Baberovski is a defender of Ernst Nolte,[45] who has his own section on Holocaust denial. While they don't deny the Holocaust explicitly, they still promote a great deal of negationism, similar to how many Armenian genocide deniers do. But let me remind you that we're discussing why Baberovski is a fringe (and thus unreliable) source, not whether he's a Holocaust denier or not. And the Nolte defense proves that he promotes undue narratives.
You need to go back to the Taner Akçam source and read that when he states “exaggerated or outright fabrications”, it's in reference to reports by Ottoman commanders of massacres against Turks in Erzurum (i.e. Western Armenia) which is entirely irrelevant to the massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia.
I will include the whole quote, so that there's no doubt and also because there's another point Akcam made that you need to hear:
Certain considerations bear emphasizing. It is important that we do not equate these events with the Armenian genocide. It is a frequent mistake to "equate" or "balance" the massacres in the Caucasus with the genocide, an error often made in Turkish histories, which cite acts of Armenian revenge as proof that the murders of 1915 were not genocide. Previous massacres are never a justification for subsequent massacres. Or, in the Turkish case, subsequent massacres can never justify earlier genocide. The second problem is the reliability of the sources. Most of the figures cited are freely invented by the authors. For example, one study of the Vilayet of Erzurum puts the number of massacred Muslims in the spring of 1918 as 25,000. After examining Turkish military publications, Dadrian claims that "the number ... as a compilation of various statistical data embedded in the wartime records of the Ottoman Third Army, reveals that altogether some 5,000-5,500 victims are involved. German sources also refer to these exaggerations.
Nuri Pasa (Enver's brother) claimed that more than thirty villages were destroyed in one such massacre. General Kress claimed that Nuri had greatly exaggerated the figures, as the events in question had not affected more than ten villages or so, and some of these could hardly be classified as villages, containing as they did no more than four or five inhabitants. Such reports were systematically exaggerated or outright fabrications, delivered in order to reinforce the image of the "Armenian peril."
The third issue is how to evaluate the events between 1917 and 1922, whether the terms "acts of revenge" or "continuation of the genocide" are accurate. There is no doubt that the events in Caucasus were part of a historical continuity in the region.
There you have it, he was still referring to the Azeri fabrications, he had also just included one fabrication in Erzurum as another example, and the entire Casualties section reflects the "freely invented" figures he mentioned (unless you have a reliable third-party source for them, which is doubtful). But read Akcam's first point carefully. This article is exactly what he described Turkish/Azeri negationists often promoting, which is trying to invent their own "genocide" to use for propaganda purposes. That is why this article is extremely WP:UNDUE and should be deleted. --Dallavid (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided a single reliable source calling them massacres, you're just repeating yourself at this point.
Sources by Hovannisian (1982: pp.239 & 283; 1996b: p.247), Kaufman (p.58), Chmaivsky (p.9), Balayev (p.43), Coyle (p.49), Mammadov & Musayev (p.33), Hasanli (pp.40 & 241), Aharonian (p.52), Baberovski (pp.163 & 166), and the Le Temps newspaper (p.4) all describe massacres of Azerbaijanis by Armenian soldiers, partisans, and/or volunteers.
There you have it, he was still referring to the Azeri fabrications
No, he's not. It's obvious that the last two sentences are the part of a new paragraph and unrelated to the statement of the previous paragraph (stating that the massacres against Turks in Erzurum are exaggerated), that's your own interpretation of the text. I won't be replying further until an admin engages. Regards, – Olympian loquere 04:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hovannisian is only referring to the invented figures in Turkish sources that Akcam was referring to, Kaufman has one vague sentence in his entire book saying 'both Armenians and Azeris massacred', Baberovski is a negationist, Coyle is a propagandist working for Azerbaijan,[46], and the rest are primary sources of the invented figures.
Do you have any modern reliable sources providing a estimate of how many Azeris were allegedly massacred? I do not believe you do, because you've only provided Turkish figures in primary sources that are obviously overblown, because there would be many easily accessible sources if there was any truth to them. If there are no reliable sources giving a death figure, that further shows the subject is too fringe to deserve an article.
Akcam clearly combines these three problems/issues into the same topic, so they are clearly related. --Dallavid (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to take a closer look at the extensively cited Jamil Hasanli book, and it turns out to be yet another source on this article denying the Armenian genocide: "Emory Niles's and Arthur Sutherland's "lost" reports brought to light just how subjective in character are the claims of Armenian genocide. Reports of attempted destruction of the Armenian race were shocking to Americans when published in New York in 918 by the U.S. Ambassador to Istanbul from 1913 to 1916, Henry Morgenthau, but they were unsubstantiated, being founded on information given only by Armenians." --Dallavid (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Archives908 (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is thoroughly sourced by over 20 highly reliable sources, a few not so good sources here and there doesn't mean that it deserves to be deleted.--Nicat49 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the only one of those citations that is both reliable and actually refers to Azerbaijanis in Armenia being "ethnically cleansed on a large scale throughout 1917–1921" confirms that it is a fabrication. --Dallavid (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Personal belief that some sources are untrustworthy because they are soviet "outdated propaganda" or otherwise, and oddly selecting one error in sourcing in the article to imply that all other sources are also wrong are not sufficient grounds for considering the deletion of the article. I can't see this AfD request, which does not meet any of the 14 criteria for deletion, improving Wikipedia. It rather catastrophizing a well written and rigorously sourced article. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 11:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs some work to replace some less than reliable sources (for example the journal Review of Armenian Studies which is a denialist journal) but not worthy of deletion. Revolution Saga (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as: 1) It’s a fork of the articles already present (Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia / March Days / Muslim uprisings in Kars and Sharur–Nakhichevan); 2) It’s a neologism based on original compilation of sources – I cannot see coherent academic discourse in the provided sources to define these events as a single solid subject that deserves a stand-alone encyclopaedic entry. In fact, modern RS (which Wikipedia prioritizes) like Taner Akcam describes the massacres as exaggerated or outright fabrications [47]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has nothing to do with the March Days massacre, and it is only slightly related to the Muslim uprisings in Kars and Sharur–Nakhichevan. As for it being a "fork" of the deportation of Azerbaijanis article, due to the enormous amount of information available on these particular massacres, I believe it easily passes the threshold for notability insofar-as meriting its own article. Moreover, these massacres are discussed by various reliable authors, not just Akçam, so I don't see the grounds to focus entirely on his perspective. – Olympian loquere 22:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained to Dallavid, the part you're quoting from Akçam is in regards to reports of massacres of Turks in Erzurum, not Azerbaijanis in Armenia, so that point is irrelevant and redundant in this discussion. – Olympian loquere 08:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As it was already pointed out above [48], the Casualties section reflects the "freely invented" figures Akcham mentioned. And from the book, he clearly refers to the Caucasus regarding fabrications while also bringing up an example Erzurum. One doesn't negate the other. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written and sourced. Grandmaster 19:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article is written with all details and links. I don't understand what is the problem. Maybe someone wants to remove this article because of their nationality?--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rəcəb Yaxşı, please don't cast aspersions regarding race, nationality, ethnicity or gender. It's not appropriate on this project and out-of-line. Focus on the quality of the article not the participants in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm struggling to see this proposal to delete the article as anything other than an attempt to whitewash history. The article is well sourced and well written. Any individual problems can be resolved in the article's talk page. I also don't think it's very helpful to scrutinize every single source to try to discredit them in an attempt to get the article deleted. Sources don't need to be perfect, as long as they're published by a reliable author and a publisher, they're good enough. This isn't a featured article. RadomirZinovyev 07:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Suggestion of deleting this page literally funny. If there is article which contains realities, however it is againts you, it does not mean that you could delete it. Article was written very well, all the references objective and keep their function.--Manchou — Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mere reason the page cites numerous Armenian Genocide deniers is a reason enough to discredit the whole thing. I struggle to see how a similar page citing Holocaust deniers would be allowed to remain. It is a made-up topic trying to tie together different, loose events that happened in different timeframes and due to the strong biases of some of its sources - can't be even reliably accounted for. Aram-van (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepFrom the beginning I am scrutinzing this article, but till now i could not see any problem. At least Hovannisian, Broers, Bloxham, Baberovski, Hasanli, Kazemzadeh is very reliable authors, so article should be stay. By the way, Thanks to editor for such interesting article. --Qızılbaş (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aram-van 2601:199:447F:8450:952A:B45B:1DA9:35B4 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This isn't merely a heavily sourced article, but an overwhelmingly sourced one. That the OP doesn't like or agree with the sources is obvious, but his personal approval of them is not a prerequisite for them to be considered valid, nor his airy assertions that this source is from a "propagandist" or that is from a "Holocaust denier" prima facie impeachments of them. Ravenswing 05:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this AfD was closed by a non-administrator, but subsequently reopened per WP:NACD. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 27 for more information. Daniel (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete or draftify /after thinking more about this, I've decided that deletion or draftification isn't necessary; issues should be resolvable on the talk page/. This is not WP:TNT-tier, but it is yet not suitable for mainspace. I agree with the concerns raised by the nominator about the reliability of sources, seeing that some of his allegations about some of the sources being biased/negationist have not been refuted. It's possible that there is a degree of PoV-forking involved. There is a lack of congruency between the long-standing content in Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia#Beginning of the 20th century and this newly created article which organizationally figures as a daughter article. But in substance it doesn't appear to be one. There needs to be a minimal degree of consensus that this is not a POV fork, and it will take longer to achieve such a consensus than it is possible in an AfD. I am uncertain about the age range. Do sources coalesce around this age range and treat this as a coherent topic? We should collectively base ourselves on the premise that there can be more clarity with regard to all this, including the number of killed. Maybe more clarity cannot be achieved, but it should be attempted, and there is WP:NODEADLINE. The article should be collaborated on more before it's published. —Alalch E. 13:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the admin reviewing this report, it's important to note that most of the concerns raised by Dallavid (which are repeated by all the Delete-comments) as the basis for deleting the article were addressed and resolved immediately after the AfD was opened: the handful of unreliable sources and the one unsourced sentence were removed, thus the remaining 34 unique reliable sources all categorically support the content and thesis of the article. Finally, the claim that the article is a "POV-fork" of the article "Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia" is easily disproven by the fact that the article and and its sources refer to massacres, not just deportations, and is notable enough to be substantially described by a multitude of reliable sources (30+). – Olympian loquere 09:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect, the citations are still contain fringe revisionists like Baberovski and Hasanli and primary sources like a 1920 French newspaper and Turkish/Azeri statistics that Akcam identified as fabrications. And of the sources that are reliable, none of them support the idea of "Azerbaijanis in Armenia ethnically cleansed on a large scale throughout 1917–1921". In fact, although the McCarthy source was removed, a lot of this article's content seems to be derived from it, including the date range. Almost none of the reliable source even use the term "massacre", the only one that you were able to quote using the term was the Kaufman book, which has just one page saying both Armenians and Azeris were massacred without mentioning any dates or locations, and that is the only mention in the entire book of the subject. --Dallavid (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well written and well sourced, making it a clear pass of WP:GNG.Frank Anchor 01:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. Well sourced, passes gng and nothing wrong with the article.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: On a first and fast read the article seems notable. I will have to examine the sources verses content per concerns raised in "Delete" !votes. Improvements are warranted as the article is not exactly "well written" as presented above (see talk) but that is not an AFD issue. Concerns of @Dallavid: should be on the talk page (please add them there) for consideration as well as other potential issues noted above. The article is not ready for GA consideration, and likely prematurely elevated to B-class but I feel not out of scope (will look closer at sourcing) and certainly interesting. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - primary objections to the article seem to be based on content that could be improved - so how is this a deletion candidate? Perhaps it should be redirected and/or merged to Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, or perhaps both should be combined into Ethnic cleansing of of Azerbaijanis in Armenia - but that's not ground for deletion, and doesn't need to be decided at AFD. No prejudice against merges and redirects. Nfitz (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_28&oldid=1131696243"