Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 27	July 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. There does appear to be media coverage of this person (how reliable it is is difficult to determine), which means there is at least an argument for notability even as a candidate. But this discussion is too inconclusive to determine this. Sandstein 06:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul-Azeez Olajide Adediran[edit]

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

Current political candidate. May become notable if elected, but currently does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the observation. Apart from being a governorship candidate of the most populous state in Nigeria, Lagos state. He is also a notable journalist and a founder of Core Media Services Ltd by extension the CEO of CoreTv News (https://www.coretvnews.com/). You can check here (https://nigeria24.me/core-media-services-ltd). The news outlet is situated in 52 local government development council of Lagos. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — He was until recently a fairly notable broadcaster/journalist and has only raised in notability as a gubernatorial candidate. Plus plenty of media coverage. Watercheetah99 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He would have to pass WP:GNG to qualify since he has not held a national office, and most of the reliable media coverage on him is related to his gubernatorial bid. That is to say, if merely running for a national office does not qualify for establishing notability, neither should coverage in reliable media outlets related to running for a national office. Correct me if I'm wrong. Chagropango (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestlly do not understand how you consider these things. This is a potential next Governor of a state and you do not think he is notable? Such a shame. @Mccapra Oyindebrah (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political candidates are not generally notable. If elected, he will be. Mccapra (talk) 18:28, 31 July 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!} 22:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Başkut Tuncak[edit]

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

All sources quote the subject's statements on topics unrelated to himself, which means that there is no significant coverage about him. A BEFORE seach reveals similar sources ([1], [2]). Person fails GNG. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails GNG.--Kadı Message 17:53, 29 July 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 Procedural close.. Feel free to start a new AFD discussion on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hamilton (entertainer)[edit]

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

In my opinion I don't think Kelly Hamilton is notable enough as her article basically says shes part of the wiggels and you can already get that information from the wiggels page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journey896 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Orphaned AfD, was never added to daily logpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 23:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this page should be deleted. We just need to obtain more information about her from reliable sources to make this page better. It'll be a team effort and will be worth the wait once the work is all done.Dipper Dalmatian 02:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wiggles. Despite the strange circumstances of this AfD (it was created in February and never added to a daily logpage), it doesn't seem like there is anything here to indicate notability. Someone was an auxiliary member of a musical group for a little over a year, and then left? This can easily be mentioned on the main page for the group. jp×g 03:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. jp×g 03:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Australia. Justi yaya 15:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wiggles as per WP:NBANDMEMBER. No evidence of independent notability. Tassedethe (talk) 19:11, 31 July 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!} 23:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plyable[edit]

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

Notability has not been established. Amigao (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a bad sign when I've read the article and still have no idea what they do. "Sources" are simple announcements with no context around what this firm does. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of passing WP:NCORP. Ovinus (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not support WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:35, 2 August 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 Restore everything. The disambiguation page was move to Interstate 50 and the redirect was suppressed. Interstate 50 was then restored to its former state. Too much original research. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 50 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page which disambiguates two entries; a made-up proposed designation for a route not supported by the source (however sources aren't allowed on DAB pages anyway) and a link to the Interstate Highway System article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Disambiguations, United States of America, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Interstate 50, then delete the Interstate 50 (disambiguation) re-direct, then revert to a re-direct to Interstate Highway System. Georgia guy (talk) 00:25, 29 July 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!} 21:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waft[edit]

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

Purely a dictionary definition. Does not seem like this could be expanded into an encyclopedic article. Even the "in science" paragraph is just simply an extended definition. Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – agree with nom that this fails WP:NOTDICT. The importance of wafting in a laboratory context is certainly encyclopedic, but belongs in laboratory safety as there isn't much to say beyond a couple definitions. There isn't that much content worth saving, although I suppose the second paragraph is usable if sourced. A redirect to laboratory safety is not suitable because "waft" can have many different meanings. Ovinus (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's basically using your fingers to draw some of the chemical odors to your nose, so you aren't sniffing something toxic/bad for you. In no way encyclopedic. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Alex-h (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whitewater wafting is one of my favorite activities! Along with terrible puns. But let's Delete this per WP:NOTDICT. Jacona (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

The other article 2022 Southeast floods happened at the same time and has a similar flood location. 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods may be deleted if you do not explain why it is different floods. Cabin134 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This event has received significant coverage on BBC, CNN, The New York Times, and USA Today. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — No sources directly linking this storm system to the storm that caused the Missouri (St. Louis) floods two days ago (July 26). If you can provide a source that directly links both floods to the same storm, then my !vote will switch to a support, but without any source doing so, any deletion/merge would not be a good idea per WP:OR. Another thing to point out, the nominator moved the 2022 Missouri floods to the current title of 2022 Southeast floods without discussions as a way to start this AfD to combine the articles. (1), I cannot find a direct source linking the two floods to the exact same storm system and (2), the rename first then AfD seems slightly off, especially since the nomination said “happened at the same time”, which is false since the Missouri floods began on the 26th and these began not he 28th. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Elijahandskip, Missouri was also affect in both storms wich means they are the same flood. Cabin134 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Without a source, that would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt the accuweather article mention the link? 50.200.241.190 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the current sources in the 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods article is from Accuweather, at least from what I can tell. Can you link the source you are referencing here? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

actually they call it different. That being said, there isn’t enough for all these seperate articles so it’s best to make an article called July 2022 United States floods, which isn’t saying they’re the same so isn’t WP:OR. 50.200.241.190 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment — WP:RAPID is at play here with the article being nominated for AfD hours after creation & at the time of nomination, still contained a {{Current event}} template. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will see if other creators think 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods sould be deleted. Cabin134 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally what this discussion is for. Let it play out. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. Cabin134 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Kentucky. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update comment — A different user unaware of this AfD moved the 2022 Southeast floods to a new title of July 2022 United States floods. Note, this was done after the AfD began, so this article is not a new content fork from that article. It may appear that way due to the three different names the article had in like a few hours (2022 Missouri floods to 2022 Southeast floods to July 2022 United States floods), but it is not. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's notable on it's own and the article has been listed at Portal:Current events. I also want to note that it's inappropriate of you to try to change the article to a redirect while there's an ongoing AfD

Keep – Although eventually I would like to see this, Missouri, and Las Vegas, all of which garnered lots of media attention, into one article. United States Man (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Current event though it may be, it's clearly notable and chiefly distinct as a natural disaster (see 2021 Tennessee floods, which was also made contemporaneously to other floods and meets criteria). Gnomatique (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnomatique that is diffrent for example 2021–2022 Malaysian floods has many diffrent storms throught in about a month and St. Louis was also effected in both storms. Cabin134 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wasn't going to !vote on this when I went I saw this article which deals with the Kentucky floods as newsworthy in their own right. Gusfriend (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — WP:SNOWBALL. There is sigcov for the floods in Kentucky separately.
Snowball keep. This is a major news story. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest WP:SNOW close. This is an event that is receiving significant coverage from American media. Also, it is inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion just hours after creation if it is a current event. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was covered far and wide. SNOW can't apply, because it is a FLOOD. Floods don't happen when it's freezing.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Freeman (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker not meeting WP:GNG; on top of that, WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT that requires constant monitoring. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Disability. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 28 July 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.

Delete: Does not meet WP:BASIC and WP:GNG BBSTOP (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna.B[edit]

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

No notability shown, fails WP:NMG and all sources are primary. Abdotorg (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. Abdotorg (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Internet deep dive turned up zero potential sources. Helen(💬📖) 22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the famous South-Korean girl groups in 2010s. The problem is it lack of people participating in Korean article.--Wpcpey (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Famous? they never even charted on Gaon. Abdotorg (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Title says it all I suppose, if they haven't charted, they aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 29 July 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. The sources presented in this discussion have remained unrebutted. Sandstein 06:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Haavisto[edit]

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

Sparse, if barely existent coverage. Certainly doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. No suitable target for redirect. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I do think there was a proper WP:BEFORE, important results often fail to turn up in English searches when the subject has mainly been written about in another language, and some newspaper coverage is difficult to find online at all even if it's fairly recent. Helsingin Sanomat, the dominating newspaper in Finland, has repeatedly written about Haavisto. When he got the Musician's Unions Award, about his work with Sami Yaffa and so on. (Also pieces like when he presents the cultural life of Roihuvuori, but that's not as relevant here.) Hufvudstadsbladet isn't as keen on writing about him, but they do single him out in several reviews, like a long recent one of him playing with Kukka Lehto and Tero Pennanen ("I musikens och berättelsernas tjänst", can't find it online) or as "one of the best producers in the country" in "Den blyga rockaren" (2013, found through the Swedish Media Archive). That's just from checking two newspapers. /Julle (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too - I can add some additional sources to be used: His band was given price by the Finnish musicians association in 2021, another Rumba hit is his interview for a new album, Aamulehti about his solo album and about his photo exhibition. Jjanhone (talk) 10:57, 4 August 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 Tsim Sha Tsui#Streets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ichang Street[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source in the article links to bing. The street is not notable, and there is little information on it. If anyone can find some Chinese sources that link to this road, then please leave them below. Fats40boy11 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep zh:宜昌街 (香港) lists two sources:
1. Er, Dong 爾東 (November 2004). 《香港歷史文化小百科16－趣談九龍街道》 [Hong Kong History and Culture Encyclopedia 16 - Interesting Talks about the Streets of Kowloon] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Ming Pao Publications [zh]. p. 143. ISBN 962-8871-46-3.
2. Liang, To 梁濤 (1993). 九龍街道命名考源 [Kowloon Street Naming Test Source] (in Chinese). Urban Council Publication. p. 11.
An alternative to deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion is to redirect the article to Tsim Sha Tsui#Streets, where Ichang Street is mentioned.
Cunard (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out these sources. The redirect to Tsim Sha Tsui#streets is also an option, and perhaps it is better than just deleting the article as I’m still not sure that the road is notable enough for its own article but I would be swayed if arguments are made that this road is indeed notable. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China Price[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this warrants its own page. Most here that's worth keeping is already in the articles Made in China, Economy of China, etc. Sections like "List of ten impressive metrics picked by Business Insider" are seldom a good sign. – Ploni (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Economics, Asia, and China. Ploni (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTESSAY and should be WP:TNTed. Seems to be part of a student assignment which TBH frequently have these types of issues. The topic itself seems possibly notable but the article would need to be majorly rewritten to salvage it. Jumpytoo Talk 05:24, 22 July 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!} 19:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find some sources that actually mention the 'China Price' by name, but this absolutely needs to be tossed. Three citations are Wikipedia articles. Side note, Made in China has a bunch of content issues :\ SWinxy (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Open Women's Singles champions in badminton[edit]

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

Last Afd was closed with the statement: The result was keep. "Consensus is that improvement is needed, not deletion." I was told to wait for six more months until article gets improved and becomes well sourced, which has clearly not happened to this date. This article is a clear WP:FORK of main German Open (badminton) article and lacks enough sources for verification. zoglophie 12:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Badminton, Lists of people, Sports and Germany. zoglophie 12:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but "improvements were not made in the timeframe I wanted" is not an argument for deletion. As was discussed in the prior AfD, this is a discrete list of notable subject matter that was WP:SPLIT from the full article, as is common to do for every main sports championship article on Wikipedia. It is easily sourced and referenced. Just because those sources aren't currently added to the article isn't a reason for deletion. Silver seren^C 13:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are just repeating your past argument Silverseren. And I don't get what you mean by "those sources". See this This is not how lists are prepared and one must see how incomplete the list currently is and probably will remain as it is in future. Somehow you still want to keep articles like these in Wikipedia?! zoglophie 13:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and should look like de:German Open (Badminton)/Dameneinzel within one year. Florentyna (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence given that a separate article is warranted, especially when the article as it stands is just tables with no prose, rather than an encyclopedic article. Even list articles should have prose, and if worthwhile prose about this list cannot be written with good sources, then we don't need a separate article for these tables. The tables can be merged back into a parent article if necessary. The point on actually needing independent sources to show notability was made by Zoglophie in the previous AFD, but seems to have been totally ignored for some reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is not the place to litigate article improvement, and a recent consensus indicated that the topic was notable. matt91486 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 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!} 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Orbit Room[edit]

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

Non-notable local bar. A celebrity owner doesn't confer notability. Several reviews available as sources, but these don't convey the significant coverage demanded by WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Deserves a sentence or two in the owner's article -- which is already there. Mikeblas (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to Alex Lifeson if desired. To be clear, I live in Toronto, so I've certainly heard of and even been to the Orbit Room myself — but the fact that it exists isn't an automatic notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, having an owner who's famous for other reasons still doesn't boost its notability in the absence of sufficent sourcing to pass GNG and CORPDEPTH, and even on a ProQuest search for older media coverage that wouldn't google, I just get a lot of glancing namechecks of its existence in event calendar listings with no discernible evidence of the kind of coverage about it that would be needed to pass GNG and CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Night Malvinas[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. A BEFORE search did not reveal reliable sources. I don't find the present reviews enough for notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Argentina. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Página 12 and La Nación are very clearly two independent reliable sources that confer notability and discuss the topic in depth. Both are in the article already. Standard for NFILM is discussion in two RS. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources (not already in the article), demonstrating an insufficient BEFORE: [3], [4]. matt91486 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFILM requires "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." (Emphasis mine) That's not the case here. It also says "has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" which hasn't been shown here. NFILM requires more than just two reliable sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply puzzled by what you expect to be finding. The reviewer for La Nación is clearly a regular reviewer at one of the biggest newspapers in the country [5]. Similarly for Página 12 you have one of their major culture writers: [6]. Regular critics at two of the biggest papers in the country very clearly meet this standard. matt91486 (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was on the fence, until I read Chris troutman's points. I agree that just having two reviews is not enough to confer notability, unless the two reviews are by critics notable enough to have their own articles. Since those are the only two reviews and the film has been out for 18 months, I find it unlikely that more coverage will emerge. There's not much information in this article anyway, and it can easily be re-created if coverage comes out 5 years after the film's release. Wes sideman (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putting the NFILM issue aside, the film seems to pass the GNG: the La Nación and Página 12 reviews are in-depth and from reliable outlets, and there are other sources – such as [7] and the two that Matt91486 listed – out there as well. NFILM is pretty clearly not intended to supplant the GNG (it simply lists "attributes that generally indicate...that the required sources are likely to exist"), so I don't think it really matters whether any of the WP:NFO criteria are also satisfied so long as the GNG is met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 16:14, 28 July 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 per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mugisha Emmanuel[edit]

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

Mugisha Emmanuel

Stub article on actor that does not contain enough information to establish either general notability or acting notability. An article should speak for itself and this does not. It does not mention significant coverage or major roles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Rwanda. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; nearly an A7 candidate. Ovinus (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no indication the that person is notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:44, 29 July 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 per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyabugande Olivier[edit]

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

Kanyabugande Olivier

Stub on actor that does not address either general notability or acting notability. There is already a draft so it cannot be moved to draft space. The references are both passing mentions of nominations for an award that is inaugural and so does not appear to be notable (but are only nominations):

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	newtimes.co.rw	List of nominees for first Rwanda International Movie Awards - Named as nominee	Yes	No, mention	Yes	No
2	inyarwanda.com	List of actors for a People's Choice Award	Yes	No, mention	Yes	No

There is no mention of significant coverage and no mention of major roles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Rwanda. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything while doing searches on Google. Fails GNG and there's no indication of subjective criteria being met either. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated and the following. The creator of this article originally created an article called Kanyabugande olivier, which was moved to Olivier Kanyabugande and then turned into a draft by me at Draft:Olivier Kanyabugande. The editor made no improvements to the draft, but on today's date submitted the draft for review without any changes or addressing the reasons why it was drafitified. Singularity42 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 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!} 21:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Climate party (UK)[edit]

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

Far too soon to have an article on a minor political party formed last week. There is a substantial Guardian source, and I gather that they'll have one councillor, their founder (who had a little bit of coverage when he ran, [8][9], but not much more than the average independent). But this isn't the multiple in-depth sources we need for GNG.

The claim in the first paragraph, "It has been compared to the Teal independents in Australia", is exaggeration and taken out of context. The Guardian just noticed the Teal independents as an example of a recent green conservative group with elected representation.

The other coverage I could find was in E&T (essentially a passing mention) and Business Green (not sure about reliability, but not the focus of the article). This party may be notable in the future, or it may not be, but it's not notable today. — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noting that I have moved the article from Climate party (UK) to Climate Party. Curbon7 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is way way too soon. The party was only registered last week, and the only source focused on the subject was literally published hours ago. No prejudice for recreation if/when it actually does some more things or gets some more people elected, but at the moment it simply hasn't shown notability. Gazamp (talk) 16:22, 28 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Intervision Song Contest[edit]

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

Former PROD. I've merged the relevant information from this canceled contest edition into Intervision Song Contest. I'm proposing this as a deletion instead of a new redirect because "sixth" contest was a placeholder decided by a Wikipedia editor after the contest was "postponed indefinitely". It is in no way an official title for the event nor does it appear as a title in reliable sources. Grk1011 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Grk1011 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Contest has been indefinitely postponed it appears and details merged, and the article title would not be a useful redirect either given that ordinal numbers are not used in any of the other articles in this series making a search for this title unlikely. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never happened. Do not see much relevance either per sources at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thanks for doing the merge. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 1 August 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!} 21:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 All-Japan artistic gymnastics championships – Men's artistic individual all-around[edit]

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

Courtesy nomination--Sportsfan 1234 had tagged this article and linked it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 All-Japan artistic gymnastics championships – Men's artistic individual all-around but it was not actually listed there. Similar to the articles listed in the other discussion, appears to fail WP:NLIST and WP:GNG--provided references are primary to the JGA and/or fail to deliver more than basic lists of results. See also similar discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 All-Japan Artistic Gymnastics Championships Qualification and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gymnasts at the 2022 All-Japan Artistic Gymnastics Championships. --Finngall ^talk 15:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Japan. --Finngall ^talk 15:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom (I guess this is an okay justification for this AFD). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non notable Japanese gymnastics event that fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Parviz Yaghoubi faction)[edit]

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

Another small group that never made any notable accomplishments, registered politically, fielded a candidate, participated in any election, etc. Notability is mostly assumed from interaction with People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. An online search doesn’t give any additional hits aside from the only source already in the article (which lacks any form of substantial coverage). Fails notability (WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, WP:ORG, take your pick). Fad Ariff (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a number of recently created odd articles about groups that never accomplished anything:

Articles for deletion/People's Mohajerin Organization of Iran
People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran – Followers of Musa's Way
United Campaign for Fulfillment of the Working Class Aspirations
Group for the Combat for Emancipation of the Working Class Fad Ariff (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was denuded of much of its content and most of its sources just ahead of the raising of this AfD with no effort to discuss the article on talk or clarify details. The first source, for instance, was deleted out of hand for having no title for its chapter in a journal, despite a page number being provided. While having no title is not ideal - this is exactly the sort of detail that should be carefully clarified and verified, not hastily deleted. I have restored the material, as appropriate for material within the remit of the post-1978 Iranian politics discretionary sanctions regime, pending proper discussion and consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source doesn't have a title or author, and the other two sources you restored don't even mention the group. Also there are some WP:V violation concerns like the logo in the infobox (which belongs to the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, and none of the sources say it belonged to this group). Even with you restoring all of this questionable content, there is nothing in the article that indicates that the group was notable for anything (other than interacting with People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, and that is not an indication of notability). Fad Ariff (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source has a page number, which is the most specific thing it can have, and it means that if you look up the journal, you can find its title and author. Also, having questions about sourcing does not demand automatic recourse to the deletion of content. This isn't a BLP. More prudent first steps are looking for fresh sourcing, raising a talk page discussion and tagging as citation needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the bibliographic info: Momayezi, Nasser. "Decimation and Fragmentation of Leftist Forces in Iran." Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies 11, no. 1 (Fall, 1987): 83. It's on ProQuest at [10]. I've downloaded a copy of the article and am happy to email it on. The only relevant sentence I see on first glance is: In 1985 several members of the central committee of the Mujahidin in Europe--such as Parviz Yaghubi, Mahmud Azdonlu, and several others--announced their decision to leave the organization and to function separately.

Citation #4 is Alaolmolki, Nozar. Middle East Journal 41, no. 1 (1987): 94–95. jstor. I can't find anything relevant on pages 94-95 on a quick skim.

If AfD participants would like, next time I'm at the library I'll scan in the relevant parts of citations #2 and 3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those and taking the time to cross-reference the material. I wouldn't deign to impose library errands on anyone, but feel free! Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not convinced that this faction has any notability, and the sources are insufficient to show any notability under GNG/NORG. There's no good redirect candidate because the main MEK article (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran) doesn't mention "Yaghoubi" at all, which further suggests that this group is not at all notable. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with KevinL that the sources are insufficient to show any notability per GNG/GNORG. Some members of this group had links with the MEK, but that alone cannot make this group notable (and that's all we have here). Alex-h (talk) 15:37, 1 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Sejong[edit]

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

Per previous AFD, has no navigational purpose, no citations, likely fails notability as well. G4 declined Justi yaya 12:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and South Korea. Justi yaya 12:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G4 Declined??? How so? To me it howled, screamed G4! Every delete reason in 1st nomination still applies, so I'm not going to bother repeatin' 'em all here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the admin made a fair decision in declining G4 (I do not think the article is "substantially identical to the deleted version", though I'm not sure the changes address the deletion rationale). That being said, the list serves no real purpose. We cannot have a list of tallest buildings for every city - and Sejong City does not check any of the boxes which would make it especially notable (as opposed to NYC or Abu Dhabi). ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

el cid, el campeador's comment made me go back and look up the edit summary and I note the admin's rationale and I was just being dramatic and just, well, you know, *blush*, that sort of thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced list of redlinked items, created by the same editor as the instance deleted at AfD in November 2020. In the absence of references, this would appear to be original research, and even if referenced, nothing indicates that it would form a notable group, whether of red or blue links. No reason to overturn the previous AfD consensus. (It appears to have been developed using List of tallest buildings in Daegu, which is also an unreferenced list of redlink entries.) AllyD (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the 5 bullet points in my nomination statement at the previous discussion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 28 July 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 Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valavanur railway station[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In the previous previous AfD, we found exactly one source that helps this to satisfy WP:V, but that source does not provide significant coverage of the station. The entries in The Great Indian Railway Atlas and India Railway Atlas & Timetable also do not provide significant coverage of this railroad station. The only other source in the article does not so much as mention the station. I have conducted an extensive search for sources on this topic, but I'm not able to find WP:SIGCOV.

There is now a community consensus that train stations have no inherent notability; we should not presume them notable on the basis that their existence is simply verifiable. Instead, this should be weighed against WP:GNG and relevant WP:SNG criteria, which this article subject fails in every respect. As such, the article should be redirected to Tiruchirappalli railway division#List of railway stations and towns, where the railway station is currently mentioned. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I still feel having an article for every railway station benefits the project and that starting AfDs for potentially thousands of them will be a waste of volunteer time and effort. Keeping individual station articles allows stations to be categorised better (by opening year, closing year, region, etc). It allows station articles to appear on the Special:Nearby feature for mobile users, helping them find relevant content near them. It also allows content to be navigated using “adjacent stations” templates. NemesisAT (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how this addresses concerns w.r.t. WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. [a]rticles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline)? This doesn't pass WP:GNG and, but it is an artificial geographical feature. WP:NGEO presumes notability for cultural heritage sites or national heritage sites (provided WP:V is satisfied), but this doesn't appear to be one of those. And WP:NGEO doesn't presume notability on the basis that a particular entity is a train station (or any other sort of building or artificial feature related to infrastructure). None of the photographs on India railinfo even indicate that there is any building present. I'm wondering if there is any specific notability guideline that you believe that this train station satisfies. If so, would you please name it? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I reckon it would easily meet WP:GNG if we had access to sources in the local language published during the planning, construction, and opening of the station. However, I decided instead to base my argument on how I feel having this article improves Wikipedia, which is a valid argument per WP:IAR. I note as well that a source has been added by Djflem since your nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  IAR is for rare exceptions. It doesn't apply here, where you are advocating for a broad exemption; that every train station should have an article. Instead, once a suitable time has passed since the previous RfC, you should open a new one to see if consensus has changed. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of the sources as of the most recent revision is as follows:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Southern Railway—Tiruchchirappali Division	Government publication.	Seems like a standard government publication.	Does not so much as mention the station by name.	✘ No
Les chemins de fer coloniaux français	Seems independent	Old (1910s), but seems fine for notability purposes.	The source mentions it as one of two stations on the English side, but does not cover the station itself significantly.	✘ No
The Illustrated Guide to the South Indian Railway	Seems independent	No reason to doubt reliability for notability purposes	The relevant page describes the town of Valavanur, including the town's hotels, roads within the town, the industry of the town, local officials in the town, objects of interest in the town, and sport in the town. The only mention of the station is that a cloth manufactory is three miles south of it, which is not significant coverage of the station.	✘ No
The Great Indian Railway Atlas	Seems independent	No reason to doubt reliability for notability purposes.	The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability.	✘ No
India Railway Atlas & Timetable	Seems independent	No reason to doubt reliability for notability purposes.	The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability.	✘ No
Pharmacographia Indica: A History of the Principal Drugs of Vegetable Origin, Met with in British India, Volume 3 Index and Appendix	Seems independent	No reason to doubt reliability for notability purposes. The sourcce is quite old.	There is a single sentence that mentions/describes the station itself.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

With respect to WP:IAR, I don't think it's really plausible to do this in light of the extremely recent RfC that rejected the claim to the inherent notability of railroad stations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These edits added three sources. I've already addressed the fact that the article from The Hindu does not provide WP:SIGCOV in my nominating statement, but sources like Google Sites IndianRailDayToday (a train directory) and trainspy (a website for train times) don't provide WP:SIGCOV nor do anything other than show that the train is included in a man-made geographical feature in directories. I still don't see a single source that gives the station itself significant coverage. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ enough attributable information in article. Djflem (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line, where it is mentioned. Djflem (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(The change in vote is not based on nominator's rationale/reasoning or because the attributable information in this article was insufficient, but simply because having the information collected in the target enhances, in this case, that article -about a branch line with 5 stations- and thus, the encyclopedia.) Djflem (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, essentially per nom. What makes a train station worthy of its own page is being able to say more than just the bare minimum. It's pretty clear there's been a serious attempt at finding sources, and even still there's quite little to work with here. I see no reason why this article can't be redirected to Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line, where a basic station listing table can be made. All the verifiable information on the present article could easily be contained within a table. Contrast this article with Viluppuram Junction railway station, a station that is a significant junction and has a much greater claim to needing a standalone page (though that article is a mess at present). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - mere existence doesn't warrant a standalone article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails WP:GNG, per source analysis above. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line as WP:ATD, with no prejudice for restoration when enough information can be found to create a Start-class article. Also Villianur railway station should be looked at (either WP:BOLDly or via AfD) for consistency reasons. Jumpytoo Talk 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: I'd say go for it (redirect) since info has been incorporated into target.Djflem (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do it if AfD closes with redirect outcomee (or closer can do this if they wish). Jumpytoo Talk 06:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion is split, with a slight majority for deletion, but no consensus. The notability of academics is a notoriously contentious topic, and people here don't agree about whether Knuth is notable for his academic work, his UFO-related activity, or both. Sandstein 06:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Knuth[edit]

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

Page has recently had some edit-warring, and was discussed at WP:ANI. Looking more closely, I am uncertain that the subject is notable, and making this nomination -- please consider my !vote as a weak delete. Reasons: any notability is likely to come from WP:NPROF. The subject has a moderate number of citations, but most of the citations are from middle authorship on papers with a moderately high number of coauthors. Looking past these papers, the highest cited paper has 167 citations (in what I believe to be a higher citation field). So I'm skeptical of WP:NPROF C1. The subject is editor-in-chief of a 20-year-old journal published by MDPI, which I do not believe is well-established for WP:NPROF C8. I don't see any sign of other NPROF criteria, and I indeed think it would be a bit surprising if a long-term associate professor at University of Albany passed this criteria. The subject has an interest in WP:FRINGE UFO theories, but I don't see a GNG pass around there. It is possible that there is a good faith combined case for notability, but I am sufficiently skeptical to make this nomination. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this discussion. I am not sure whether WP:GNG is met, but if it is, I imagine it is going to end up that the article would be mostly a WP:FRINGEBLP which is fraught. There is at least one WP:FRIND source that seems relevant for the biography, but that is rather thin to write a standalone article. Having an algorithm used by Wolfram is perhaps noteworthy, but it's also not normally the thing we would identify as justifying a standalone BLP since Wolfram tends to be pretty peripatetic when it comes to including ideas that are mathematical. jps (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NACADEMIC The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. 5Q5|^✉ 12:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy is neither a major nor a well-established academic journal. jps (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the only thing well-established about it is that nobody trusts it to do any quality control. XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having originally authored the article, I'm clearly of the opinion that the subject achieves the requisite standard of notability. His academic papers; his career history in the round (including NASA Ames); his editorship of the Entropy journal; the Knuth Algorithm on Wolfram; and the public exposure he has attained for his willingness to publicly engage in the endeavour of scientific investigation into UAP.

I will also note - albeit this is likely outwith the scope of this discussion - that in light of the recent US governmental statements and actions pertaining to UAP (involving the US military; intelligence agencies; Congressional hearings; NASA), to regard scientific research into this subject area as "fringe" is patently absurd. Is Prof. Avi Loeb, leading Harvard University's Galileo Project, also now regarded as a fringe "pseudoscientist"? In any case, as noted, this is likely not the place for that wider discussion, however I would like to register my disappointment and strong opposition to this apparent state of affairs within the prevailing culture at Wikipedia that seems to be defining policies at present. Cosmoid (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE is well-defined as a content guideline on Wikipedia and was codified well before the recent dust-ups about UFOs. Note that it does not make any value judgement with respect to the subject material. It only outlines best practices for how to discuss fringe material. There are even clear rules for how to identify the fringe nature of a topic and the ide that "recent US governmental statements and actions" is not the standard that is used to judge whether a topic is subject to WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is the current "mainstream" view on UAP established? The fact that US government officials have publicly confirmed that UAP *do* exist most certainly should be considered important in this regard. The scientific study of UAP is not "Fringe" - even if many of the theories as to their nature may well be defined as such. Cosmoid (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RGW. Until there is a big splash article published in mainstream journals that argue there is something more to UFOs than human technology, natural phenomena, hoaxes, or delusions, we are stuck at Wikipedia with following this Occam's razor approach that the scientific research community has taken towards the subject. The subtext, of course, of the present governmental interest is that there may be human technology at work here. The extraordinary arguments that there may be an explanation beyond the prosaic four is the one that requires extraordinary evidence we do not have. Wait for that Science or Nature paper, I guess, and, until then, keep reaching for those stars (just not at Wikipedia). jps (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "U" in UAP stands for "unidentified". A very large proportion of UAP reports are most likely resolvable to human tech, natural phenomena, hoaxes and so forth. This has already been established in numerous historical studies, both private and government. However, there is a subset that are not so readily explainable. That has been publicly acknowledged by the US government and its agencies. As you're no doubt aware, the US Congress has now passed legislation - with more coming shortly - to require US government agencies to take this matter seriously; from encouraging service personnel to file reports, to the research and investigation of those reports. For the sake of clarity: The US government has made official statements - and even passed legislation - that effectively declares that the topic of UAP should no longer be considered "fringe", with all the associated stigma that implies. Indeed, this essential point is explicitly at the heart of these initiatives, which are intended to encourage witnesses in professional positions to come forward without fear of career impacting ridicule; from military and intelligence community personnel, to civil aviation pilots, to police officers and so on.

Scientists of the likes of Kevin Knuth are pursuing what the US government has now explicitly requested of academia - to research UAP phenomena. In following the scientific method, no outcome should be assumed prior to the collection and analysis of the evidence, and nothing should be ruled out of consideration by an a priori assumption with no proven theoretical grounding. I am well aware of Occam's razor and the appeal to parsimony. However, this only applies when evaluating a set of hypotheses that fit the known facts. When you are tasked with collecting and analysing the raw data of an unexplained phenomena, you do not shrug your shoulders and say "I won't bother looking, because established wisdom dictates what can and cannot be, ergo I'll just cherrypick whichever "facts" conform to those preconceptions and ignore the rest". That approach is more akin to religion that science.

World renowned academic institutions like Harvard University are openly supporting such UAP projects. The US military and now NASA are setting up programs to explicitly study UAP. The act of engaging in the investigative processes of the topic in and of itself is no longer considered "fringe science". It is absolutely mainstream - and I am of the opinion that it's high time Wikipedia caught up with the world as it is today, rather than base policy around anachronistic sociocultural and political paradigms that should be left in the 20th century. Cosmoid (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the argument (which is an old one) that there are "U" accounts which are "not readily explainable" is that the arguments that a particular "sighting" is "explainable" can be argued against ad infinitum. And that is typically the name of the game. The goal of the "I want to believe" enthusiast is to cast doubt on any prosaic explanation so that the conclusion they want to keep alive as a possibility is not snuffed out. This has been the name of the game for decades. The US government, thankfully, has no sway over whether a topic is subject to our WP:FRINGE guideline. We go by sources that are in compliance with WP:FRIND. So far, you might notice, the boosters of this current UAP craze do not take kindly to the mainstream critique of their arguments. It's a classic story that we see all across the WP:FRINGE spectrum. Also, when you say "world renowned academic institutions like Harvard University" what you mean to say is one astronomer has fallen off the deep end. Academic freedom means Avi can pursue whatever flights of fancy he likes. But the judgement of his colleagues is that he is barking up some very wrong trees. That's the context. Now we need to get on with figuring out how to make sure that the reader understands this. jps (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"But the judgement of his colleagues...". You know them all personally, do you? Look, I'm sure we could argue back and forth about the UAP question all night long. However, as previously noted, this is not the place to have that broader discussion - and frankly, I have neither the inclination nor time to waste on such a pointless exercise. Cosmoid (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think overall the subject passes WP:GNG and 5Q5 is quite right about that journal editorship. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb, you might want to reconsider the impact of the journal editorship, per comments below. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keep! votes. I found the rapid closure today of this filing regarding the subject and article creator at ANI of interest. Jusdafax (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entropy is an MDPI journal with a poor reputation, not the kind of flagship-of-the-field publication that the wiki-notability guideline for academics has in mind. If there's a notability case to be made here, it's not via that path. Nor do I see a path through citation counts alone, given the concerns raised above (middle authorship, having to stand out from a high-citation field). Having one's work implemented in Mathematica is nice, but hardly an indication that one has pioneered a pivotal new development; Mathematica is a big, big toolbox. So, no path to wiki-notability there. Scraping together scattered media mentions isn't a good foundation for an encyclopedia article, either. XOR'easter (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I first heard of Knuth because of work he co-authored in quantum theory, work that was respectably published but neither a solo effort nor as influential as, e.g., Lucien Hardy's. Compare the 88 GS citations for Goyal, Knuth and Skilling (2010) to the 384 accumulated by Masanes and Müller (2011), for example, or the 650 citations to Chiribella, D'Ariano and Perinotti (2011). The raw numbers are a crude indicator, of course, but I think it is fair to say that on this topic, the work to which he contributed doesn't stand out above the field. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

(EC)Comment. Entropy has a long track record of publishing junk science by unqualified "researchers". In fact, it's probably one of the journals most responsible for MDPI's poor reputation; certainly its publication of antivax[11] and anti-GMO[12] propaganda in 2012 and 2013 -- from the same quack author-- was enough to put the whole publisher on Beall's List. So I certainly wouldn't call his editorship of it an NPROF pass by any means. JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knuth cannot be held responsible for what the publication did before he was its editor-in-chief. Cosmoid (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But he can be held responsible for (a) taking a position at a journal that has a history of publishing pseudoscience and (b) supporting the ongoing pseudoscience being published at that journal including a paper that he wrote himself. jps (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he's "responsible" for anything, the relevant point is that only being Editor-in-Chief of a very select class of journals qualifies for the notability guideline. And Entropy is not a member of that select class. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those papers were published under his tenure[13] as editor-in-chief. That's part of why I singled them out. JoelleJay (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was truly on the fence about this, but the discussion at WP:BLPN has swayed me. Where are the sources that document the biography of this person? Where do they account for his interest in anything, his childhood and adolescence, his personal life, his hobbies, his friends, his cultivation of a persona? I see no source that can attest to that. Mere mention of a person saying this or that isn't really good enough for us to write a biography, and we should be honest about that. Standards for inclusion should be higher here because when they are low, we end up writing either prose that is helpful to precisely no one or we turn into glorified CVs. Neither of those options seems better than just putting this part of the project away. jps (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is irrelevant for WP:Prof, which the user should read. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding WP:Prof, under Criteria (6) it states:

"The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society".

On this point specifically: I would like to share some 'original research'. I am aware that, in the absence of a reference, the following information may not be enough to support the case in and of itself, but I'd nevertheless like to add this to the record, for what it's worth. It has come to my attention, based on a communication I received from someone associated with a member of university faculty, that Knuth has just been promoted to a full professorship. The official university website has not yet been updated, but should be by the beginning of the new semester (if the academic calendar is the same as the UK, I'm assuming September). Either way, confirmation by reliable references should hopefully be available within a matter of weeks. I'd ask that this be taken into consideration. Cosmoid (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full professorship is irrelevant to C6, which applies to university presidents. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being that WP:Prof concerns academics ("This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements."), it seems logical that "...held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post..." in Criteria 6 would refer to those occupying the highest academic posts within the institution - usually full professors. The word "administrative" may apply to professors, whose responsibilities invariably include a set of administrative tasks within both their departments and the institution as a whole. Cosmoid (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the details on WP:PROF, you'll find this for C6: "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)."

Full professor is a rank, not a job, and the notability criterion for rank is "named chair or 'Distinguished Professor'", per C5. PianoDan (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am making is not about the letter of the guideline - it is about exposing those letters as self-contradictory.

As I said, the entire point of WP:Prof is defined as being about academics. In so many words it states: "This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. An academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education; academic notability refers to being known for such engagement.".

Professors within academia are generally known to others within their research domain. They lead teams of PhDs conducting academic research; they run labs (Knuth Lab, for example). Indeed, the very work depends on knowing who your peers are and what they are researching. That should amount to academic notability. That C6 then refers to administrators who may not even have followed the academic career path - yet dismisses professors who have - is contradictory and contrary to the spirit of the guideline's purpose as stated, in my view. Much like many of Wikipedia's monumental corpus of rules, regulations and guidelines. Cosmoid (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we are having here is that Wikipedia is non-innovative and aims to inform to the best of our ability according to WP:5P. Sometimes different pillars come into conflict. This is especially the case in situations where the subject is borderline or obscure. That's what we're dealing with here. You are making a case that the subject is not obscure, but the problem as I see it is that the evidence seems to indicate that he hasn't been noticed by "others within their research domain" in the way we would normally desire if we were to be complete and honest about the biography. That is my argument in toto. If you know of independent reliable sources who discuss Knuth's biographical import, please let me know. jps (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think he quite climbs over WP:PROF on citations, and I agree that Entropy is not good enough to pass him on that criterion. If he had a bit more discussion in mainstream media for his activity, that would push him over on WP:GNG independently of WP:PROF, but... he doesn't. PianoDan (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply to jps, above, specifically in relation to Criteria (6) of WP:PROF. Thanks. Cosmoid (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.Weak delete As I see it there are three possible route for notability for Knuth, WP:PROF-C1, WP:PROF-C8, and general notability for his UFO work. I don't believe he passes C1 due to "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". I was of the thought that he passed C8, but I don't believe Entropy quite passes well-established. It might be possible that he passes GNG in the future for his UFO work, but at the moment he doesn't quite make it in my opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand the above comment. His work has been cited by 4672 mostly independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

None of his highest-cited papers are even in his field (they're all neuropsych/neurophys, in neuropsych/neurophys journals), and he's predictably a middle author on all of them. Since he made only minor contributions to those papers, we shouldn't credit him with their success, and we certainly shouldn't describe their findings as a product of his research career (or vice versa: they shouldn't be presented as if they were a significant focus of his research). So if we shouldn't describe those papers with more than a half-sentence in his biography, they shouldn't be given much weight for C1 purposes either. JoelleJay (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this comment, but JoelleJay has said everything I would have. I was aware of those papers when I made my comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of very high citation count, and is also covered in the popular media [14][15][16][17].---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments above, and also: Scopus citations do not suggest Knuth passes the "average professor test", as he is below even the median for most citation metrics among his ~70 coauthors with >12 papers.

Total citations: average: 7053, median: 2593, Knuth: 2330

Total papers: 104, 62, 83

h-index: 31, 23, 20

Top 5 papers: 1st: 1025, 496, 810; 2nd: 521, 263, 206; 3rd: 337, 154, 169; 4th: 280, 140, 162; 5th: 226, 109, 103.

All of his top 5 papers are outside of his own self-described research interests, and additionally are in a field with higher citation rates than what he seems to publish in the most. Accordingly, if I censor both those papers and the citation profiles of his coauthors on those papers (most of whom were well above the median), his metrics are actually worse:

TC: 4494, 1699, 827. TP: 81, 54, 77. h: 24, 21, 14. T5: 968, 274, 70; 392, 151, 59; 250, 115, 51; 199, 100, 47; 161, 87, 45. JoelleJay (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The citation record is less impressive than it first looks: if one skips over the highly cited non-first-author work in neuroscience (an extremely high-citation-count field) he barely breaks into triple digits with his work applying Bayesian methods to physics. I'm less impressed with the editorship of an MDPI journal than I would be with one from a reputable publisher. And the UFO work is well-enough sourced to keep in the article, but not really enough for notability by itself. All that said, this could easily be a weak keep rather than a weak delete. I'm pushed over to the delete side by the ongoing WP:COATRACK problems, including recent dubious additions by User:Not the droid you're looking for and User:Cosmoid. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What "dubious edits" are you referring to please, David? Which edits have I made that you consider "dubious" - and why? Cosmoid (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1100329026 is a typical example. It adds a description of Knuth's research, based only on primary sources about that research. As I wrote on the BLPN discussion, material by the subject is ok for career milestones (if not unduly self-serving) but not for opinion-based material like what the main results of his research might be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That edit appears to be the introduction of the Knuth Algorithm into the article that is incorporated into Wolfram's Mathematica. Why is that "dubious"? This is exactly the kind of information that Wikipedia editors are demanding to demonstrate notability. That is why I put it in there. So again, I ask you: Why was that edit, in your words, "dubious"? Cosmoid (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text is misleading (per the documentation, Mathematica offers five different binning algorithms, not just Knuth's), and it doesn't actually indicate significance (Mathematica implements many tools, sometimes just because they can). XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not support your accusing my edits of being "dubious". As regards developing an algorithm used in Wolfram's Mathematica not indicating significance; so says you. Others, including myself, disagree. There was nothing "misleading" about the text - it was absolutely factual. That you see fit to deem it "insignificant" does not render the text "misleading" in and of itself. If I had written "This demonstrates that Knuth's work eclipses that of Albert Einstein in terms of its impact on the course of human history", then you may have had a point. Cosmoid (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioning that the "Knuth Algorithm" is only one of five options for one parameter of a software function that takes many parameters is misleading by omission. And a publication in data analysis that has less than 30 citations even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar is, indeed, insignificant. XOR'easter (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Mathematica offered hundreds of alternative algorithms that produce exactly the same output, then you might have a point. As it is, you simply appear to be pronouncing as fact whatever you feel is necessary to support your unsubstantiated claim that my edits were "dubious". It should be quite obvious why the edits were made. Nobody is claiming that the Knuth Algorithm demonstrated notability in and of itself. But, it is part of a corpus of work which, in my view, does. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, to label the edits "dubious" is non-collegial and appears contrary to WP:AGF. Cosmoid (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it weren't for the subject's activity in ufology, he'd be just another non-notable academic. Knuth is best known for advocacy of the notion that a number of UFOs reported by the military are likely extraterrestrial in origin, UFO skepticism is bad, and we should fund serious research to get evidence of ET in our skies. His Newsweek opinion piece and The Conversation piece have gotten rehashed all over the media landscape [18], [19], [20], often with click-bait headlines about governments hiding evidence of aliens. Knuth is also active on the paranormal entertainment circuit: Open Minds UFO Radio, Phenomenon Radio, Radio Misterioso, My Alien Life, Podcast UFO, Night Dreams Talk Radio, Coast To Coast AM, and Utah's paranormal Conference, Phenomenon ("We Believe"). Knuth's "ex NASA scientist says UFOs aliens" schtick definitely got attention, but only the WP:SENSATIONAL kind: his extraordinary claims are merely reported in media outlets with zero expert analysis or critique. Since his WP:FRINGE ideas (and not his rather unremarkable academic career) are the sole focus of media coverage, we don't have the kind of serious, in-depth 3rd party biographical information we'd need to construct a neutral BLP. Until we do, Knuth and his claims are best given a few lines in Ufology or UFO conspiracy theories. BTW, I found circumstances of the article's creation by a single purpose account of interest: after their article on the UAPx organization was deleted their next step was to create this resume-like bio of the organization's VP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, LuckieLouie, the article in question about UAPx was not deleted - as a cursory glance at the AfD decision should inform you. It was moved to the Draft namespace, pending additional secondary source references becoming available.

Secondly, define "they". I am not a member of UAPx. I am someone who has followed and supported their work and believes in their mission to collect and analyse raw UAP data using the scientific method with a view to furthering understanding of UAP phenomena, whatever they may be.

Thirdly, whilst you might imagine yourself to be Wikipedia's Sherlock Holmes, that someone with the aforementioned interests might be motived to write an article about a notable professor who is brave enough to put their head above the parapet, conduct research and speak out about a subject that has for so long been subject to ridicule, should be of no surprise to you.

I have been absolutely transparent about my interest in the UAP topic and the small subset of scientists, engineers and other professionals who are gutsy enough to put their public reputations on the line and actually do the research. Those involved with UAPx, Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, The Galileo Project, Sky360 and others are actually trying to do the scientific investigative work to collect and analyse evidence, as opposed to sitting on their arses pompously yabbering ad infinitum about the inability to seriously hypothesise about the nature of anomalous phenomena due to ... you guessed it; lack of evidence.

So yes, I have an interest. As do most people, I'd assume, who take time out of their day to write articles for Wikipedia about subjects within their domain of interest that they regard as important and notable. If that makes me somehow befitting of Wikipedia blackballing, fine. Go ahead. Do your worst. Cosmoid (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UFO/UAP data collection and analysis by the DOD/Intel is now the official policy and law of the United States government. So a scientist like Knuth's interest in the topic is not automatically disqualifying as fringe as it was in the past. Lots of skeptics with Wikipedia bios have also appeared in "sensational" media over the years. 5Q5|^✉ 14:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UFO/UAP data collection and analysis by the DOD/Intel is now the official policy and law of the United States government. So a scientist like Knuth's interest in the topic is not automatically disqualifying as fringe as it was in the past. That's not how this works. We follow WP:FRINGE, not some vision of how the US government policy legitimizes investigations. jps (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three additional references to Knuth's UAP related notability:

- Article & interview on Texas Public Radio: https://www.tpr.org/science-technology/2021-06-18/physicist-takes-a-serious-look-at-unidentified-aerial-phenomena

- Article in UK press: https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/30/ex-nasa-scientist-says-aliens-exist-encounters-covered-governments-7672163/

- Interview on WAMC Northeast Public Radio: https://www.wamc.org/podcast/vox-pop/2022-05-11/uap-ufo-tic-tacs-what-can-science-tell-us-5-11-22

I also have links to 5 published (not self-published) academic books (non-UAP related), authored either solely by Knuth (2), or in collaboration with other authors (3), however I assume these would not be useful references owing them being primary sources (hence I did not include them). That said, they do, I feel, add yet further weight to the argument that Knuth is a notable presence with his academic domain. That, combined with his activity within the field of scientifically grounded UAP investigation - for which he is notable for having combined an established academic career with longstanding public engagement in that discourse - provide ample grounds for his inclusion in Wikipedia, in my opinion. Cosmoid (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmoid: if you have authored books with independent reviews in reliable sources, then the reviews can help contribute towards notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that interviews do not contribute to notability unless they include very substantial independent secondary analysis/commentary about the interviewee by the author. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above Keep! votes. I see plenty of votes for Keep, several calling for weak delete, no shortage of straw man arguments, and a few outright fallacies. Jusdafax rightfully calls to attention the repeated lapses in judgment demonstrated by jps on the subject page, Talk page, and the rapid closure of the filing regarding the subject and article creator at ANI. Depending on how you choose to define academic field, subject qualifies under WP:GNG, WP:PROF#C1, and WP:PROF#C7. In contrast to above statement dismissing subject as “a long-term associate professor,” Knuth was recently promoted to the rank of full professor. There's additional third-party coverage about the article subject as a person available at links that haven’t even been incorporated into the article yet: it was only a barebones skeleton effort just getting off the ground when this childish edit-warring began due to the religious fervency of the topic and willful disbelief from either side to see the perspective of the other. Cosmoid's authorship of the article represents one of the first attempts by a young editor to make a positive contribution, yet all sorts of critical opprobrium is being indiscriminately tossed about in shotgun approach for a variety of invalid reasons including lack of familiarity with “The Art of Wikipedia Weeding” that should be not only expected, but welcomed and encouraged. We weren’t all born spouting Wiki markup syntax and WP:SHORTCUTS. WP:AGF.

Of particular note is the willfully incoherent blatant mischaracterization by jps: “When you say "world renowned academic institutions like Harvard University what you mean to say is one astronomer has fallen off the deep end. Academic freedom means Avi can pursue whatever flights of fancy he likes. But the judgement of his colleagues is that he is barking up some very wrong trees.” I count the endorsement of some sixty of his colleagues in this group photo, which represents only about two-thirds of the membership. The Galileo Project counts close to 100 Harvard University researchers and affiliates with the project, many of them top scientists in their respective fields. The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies counts upwards of 200 formal subject matter experts among its invitation-only membership, with well over 400 scientists and engineers attending its last annual meeting in June. This is not “one astronomer who has fallen off the deep end.” UAPx counts close to half a dozen tenured PhD astrophysicists as core members. Dozens more including DOE national labs distinguished research fellows contribute to the nonprofit from the wings, yet choose to remain anonymous precisely because of the stigma brought to fore from the skeptics, many of whom remain blissfully unaware of the contemporary body of evidence that has led to an immediate about-face and historically unprecedented legislation from the Congress, the IC, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This deletion review itself is the elephant in the room and case in point front and center as a prominent example of such lingering stigma.

Notably, neither the Wikipedia entries for Avi Loeb or Garry Nolan nor Christopher Mellon sees any of them labeled as ufologist, a term which represents blatant mischaracterization and historical stigma when intentionally misapplied. Knuth is employed as a tenured university professor who leads his own research group and is responsible for millions of dollars in federal grants from NSF et al. He is no more 'ufologist' than any of the aforementioned examples. Yet whether Avi numbers 1 or 10 or 100 Harvard scientists, and whether UAP prove to be completely mundane, natural phenomena, time traveling teapots in the orbit of Jupiter, or momentary imaginings of a Boltzmann brain bears no impact on the merit or suitability of Knuth's notability or suitability for entry. The question of whether Knuth or Avi Loeb are “entirely off the deep end in the eyes of their colleageues” is neither here nor there, and has only entered into this conversation as a farcical pretense and red herring.

In regards to Cosmoid's referenced statement, WP:FRINGE/ALT is not any sort of automatic disqualification. Historically now-mainstream topics that were once considered fringe include continental drift before the discovery of plate tectonics, the existence of Troy, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory. Academic investigation of sprites, jets, ELVES, trolls, pixies, ghosts, and gnomes, ball lightning, St. Elmo's fire, and the Hessdelen lights were all at one time in the realm of UAP, yet no one would call research into these topics pseudoscientific in nature. Fundamental analysis of the flight characteristics and radar cross-section characteristics of the tic-tac in the USS Nimitz incident are equally straightforward and by no means deserving of premature dismissal as pseudoscience. Just because a field was historically considered fringe doesn't mean that it will be in the future, nor is any study into what may or may not be historically considered to be a part of that field itself necessarily pseudoscience. Yet all of this is neither here nor there when the question is one of notability, not acting as self-appointed intellectual internet police on a crusade to protect the sanctity of the vaunted halls of knowledge from the hordes of unwashed masses and infidels at the gates, whether such characterization holds water of not. — 🤖 Not the droid you're looking for (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link available showing Knuth is now a full professor? 5Q5|^✉ 10:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NPROF criteria 5 is for a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment, being a professor would not pass the criteria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. The "full professor" title does not mean a pass of any of the wiki-notability-for-academics criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is important. "Full Professor" is simply the third step in the tenure and promotion process, after "Assistant Professor" and "Associate Professor." If it conferred notability, there would be tens of thousands more academics suddenly eligible for articles. It does not. "Distinguished Professor" and "Named Chair" are NOT the same thing. PianoDan (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone knows they're not the same thing, PianoDan. It is nevertheless absurd that a University President should qualify for academic notability when they may not even have followed an academic career path (and often haven't), whilst there is even a question over the academic notability of a Full Professor like Dr. Knuth, who has over 100 papers & several books published in the academic literature and runs his own research lab. Cosmoid (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take that up on the NPROF talk page. I'll note that at one point I did investigate university presidents' academic pedigrees (55+ people, chosen by looking at the current president of every other university a given president had attended/worked at) and was surprised to find most of them had strong scholarly profiles. Almost all of them had been profs, and a large proportion appeared to additionally meet NPROF through citations/named chairs. These were mostly R1 universities, however. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think there are a few criteria the subject almost meets, like C1 and C7. I find the analysis by JoelleJay convincing: he's less-cited than his co-authors (with a reasonable cut-off of having 12 papers published), so doesn't meet C1. I would like to see more of his impact to satisfy C7: a few quotations in the press is relatively common for academics. Femke (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic (Joey Cape and Tony Sly album)[edit]

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

Only present source is from their record label, zero significant coverage found. Found a few for Acoustic Volume Two (which is a different album in case that's not clear) so be wary of that if you go searching. Shame 'cause I love this album, but thems the breaks. QuietHere (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more digging and found this from See Magazine, but that's still all I've got. Still can't see this article getting saved. QuietHere (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least assuming that random punk zine reviews like this one are no good. QuietHere (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Suspect nominator's right on the money here. Could use a line or two added to the Cape and Sly articles... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, came to same conclusion as nominator. Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:20, 28 July 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!} 23:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAP Associates[edit]

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

Real estate company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - notability is inherited from the Dholera Special Investment Region development. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company satisfies the criteria for notability as it already has multiple coverages in WP:RS. —Krishna's flute (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the test, it takes more that coverage in WP:RS, we require multiple references that meet NCORP criteria. Can you link to any? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slew of routine/company announcements, indeed fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 3 August 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 Southampton Students' Union. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton University Guild of Change Ringers[edit]

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

Local society of bell ringers, entirely sourced to a number of local church websites. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not usually allow articles on university student clubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article does not pass WP:GNG. Unless someone can inform us of something significant that makes them notable, I do not believe that they are notable enough to warrant their own article. A Merge or Redirect to the University of Southampton as a plausible term could also be an option instead of deletion, but deletion is also a valid option. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the mother article per ATD. 174.212.212.9 (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Southampton University Students' Union which it is affiliated with. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information and Redirect to Southampton University Students' Union as it appears to be organised as part of the Union's categories - the constitution says The society shall be placed in the students union group or category best suited to the Guild as decided by the committee. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:40, 1 August 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 Skylar Grey discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar Grey (album)[edit]

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

Draftified as not meeting WP:NALBUM, then moved back to mainspace by creator, this recording does not indeed meet WP:NALBUM. Sources presented are articles on the artist, passing mentions etc. No national chart placement (iTunes don't count), no evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG; WP:NALBUM. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've gone through it, removed obvious Music PR, what's left is still just promotional garbage, there is nothing notable about this release. Acous mana 12:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skylar Grey discography. Going the independent route can unfortunately lead to situations like these where a formerly popular artist's star fades, and as a result the press stops paying attention. Low sales probably didn't help either, but the proof is in the pudding that this just isn't a notable release. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:24, 28 July 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. After disregarding the sockpuppets' opinions, there was no one arguing to keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Singer[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Vanity page of non-notable immigration lawyer. Main claim to notability is that he managed Rick Genest, and published photos of him, but notability is not inherited, and I can only find passing mentions of Singer in the references about Genest and online. The media "contributions" the article credits him with seem to also be only passing mentions, for example, a site search for him in the Financial Post yields only [21], same for CNN [22], same for CBC [23] [24]. He's quoted a few times in this Daily Beast article about immigration [25]. Orphan article, apart from a photo credit link in Rick Genest. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE. Storchy (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Photography, Law, and Canada. Storchy (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*I disagree. Many less known lawyers are on Wikipedia without any issues. This article is live since 2018. I suggest we try to improve this article first with more citations. I saw today someone has already corrected a failed verification. I think Colin Singer notability is more than just being the manager of zombie boy (published author, lawyer, photographer). All social profiles of him has many followers meaning he is a public figure. Deleting this article meaning deleting 10s or 100s of other lawyers here. Legalife103 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Legalife103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:WHATABOUT, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. You're welcome to add WP:Reliable sources about him, if you can find WP:Significant coverage of the man. I had a damn good try. Storchy (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Storchy! I hope you are well. I asked an editor from zombie boy's page to add more references to establish the connection between the two instead of being "passing mentions". I saw he also added singer as an executive producer (IMDB). I'm trying to find more publications of him online and I'll edit them in when I have the chance. I saw you added "self published sources". Am not familiar with this one. Care to elaborate? Does this mean every author who has references for his work has this tag? Thanks for helping improving this piece! Legalife103 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. WP:Blogs, press releases, and other self-published works are not regarded as WP:Reliable sources on Wikipedia.

On a related matter, the account that added blog posts for references is User:Zom.b.fan. There are no posts to that account's user talk page. How did you ask them? Storchy (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So an interview with a subject saying he was managed by someone is not a valid reference for the management of the subject? And I believe he/she added another reference from a business database source showing Singer as a part of a management company of Zombie Boy. Is that count as a blog post as well? And for your question - this editor is known from Zombie Boy fan group outside of Wikipedia. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of familiarity with Zombie Boy or I would have done these edits myself. I think we now covered Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, so according to Wikipedia's guidelines there is no need to nominate this article for deletion no more. Unless you have another specific reason for deletion? Legalife103 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

@Storchy? Please advise as an experienced editor what else can we do to improve the article? I have found more Financial Post publications. I will edit them in tomorrow. What else? Legalife103 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to show substantial coverage from reliable sources, showing his notability according to the General notability guidelines, and the guidelines for Notability of people. Storchy (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank you. As I have COI should I add these by myself directly or suggest to be added? Legalife103 (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yes, please suggest the additions at Talk:Colin Singer, and thanks for disclosing the conflict of interest. Storchy (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after a very long research I have found all Financial Post articles, Lawyers Daily, Mondaq and the CBC interview and BNN Blomberg interview. I added all publications and reliable sources on the talk page as you have suggested. I think that shows Singer's expertise in his field. Legalife103 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An individual's notability should be established independently of other individuals (see also WP:NOTINHERITED). All text in the sections 'Entertainment' and 'Photography' supports the claim that Zombie Boy is notable, but not Colin Singer. That is, Singer isn't notable just because he manages or photographs a notable individual. Moreover, registry information (eg - the Quebec lawyer registry) is not sufficient to establish notability (all lawyers in the province are required to have an entry). Other refs are either self-published (his books, and two of his websites), tangential mentions in articles about other subjects (eg - the first ref to BBC, which is about Zombie Boy's death), or sources that are not reliable (blogs, business listing aggregation websites, etc.). In order to establish notability, reliable sources in which Colin Singer is the principal subject of an article must be provided. Mind matrix 13:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope you are well. As replied to Storchy, with his great direction and assistance, I have added multiple publications from reliable sources (articles, interviews for national networks etc.). I think this emphasis the subject's expertise in his field regardless of Zombie Boy. What do you think? Legalife103 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets the minimum threshold for notability IMO. Although a bit unorthodox, today's notability can also be measured outside of Wikipedia (at least in my opinion). Take a look here: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&q=colin%20singer. You can see the trend under the search "Colin Singer" for the past 30 days. Even if we zoom in on Legal/Law to avoid "Capturing" searches for other Colin Singers, we can still see a lot of searches. Add to that the followers number on social media (both for the subject himself and for his brand - CCIRC) and you'll have a better picture of his "digital notability". That being said, when looked at through the classic "Wikipedia" lens, I can still see him meeting the criteria. A lawyer - Who isn't one, right? A photographer - we all are, but some of his work was actually published on 3rd party platforms (exhibits, magazines). A film executive producer - that is new to me, but after looking at IMDB I think it adds more weight towards recognition. Manager of Zombie Boy - notability isn't inherited, true. But I think it wasn't just a matter of "managing an artist", but actively be a creative part of the brand (according to the references and media published). Immigration lawyer - as I said, everyone's a lawyer these days, but there are a lot of publications under his name on several major news outlets and legal directories (I think Mondaq is one of them. Am not familiar with Lawyer's Daily though). A quick search on Google reveals he is also an editor of a Google News featured website: cimmigrationnews.com. This shouldn't be on his wiki of course, as a deep dive shows this website is actually a part of immigration.ca's network, so no surprises there, but it still shows that we might need to consider adding the brand's (immigration.ca) notability weight to the discussion. I'm not saying a commercial law firm should have its own wikipedia entry, but the activity, mentions and publications it generates, should be added to the person behind it. In conclusion, I thought he was notable enough when I first wrote that entry, and I think he is notable enough today. Thanks for reading this ENTIRE thing! :) Globalbandit (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) — Globalbandit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I believe this article should be kept. It sheds some light about Singer's activities, and the person himself is notible anough for an article. The contentor (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Utterly lacking in substantial independent sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mentioned before, new sources were added with the help of the OP, publications showing expertise in this field and other new resources (film producer, entertainment manager, photographer) from independent resources (cbc, bnn, lawyers daily, FP etc). When someone is notable for his work or expertise and has sufficient publications, no "external" coverage of him is necessary (like artists, academic researchers etc). I think we have established Singer's expertise with the professional publications published on different independent platforms.Legalife103 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC) — Legalife103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Sourcing's a mess, COI/UPE's a mess, the tags on the page say it all, really. Sourcing to articles contributed by Singer ('Colin', in the article) to various publications don't count, neither do his own website or incidental mentions in coverage of the death of the singer he managed. Sources like this one are a real concern - is this directory entry meant to validate Singer's management of his singer? Even when you see a (rare) decent-looking source like CBC, it turns out he's just a talking head in a feature. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far we've had a hit parade of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, including WP:WHATABOUT, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:BUTITEXISTS, WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:POPULARPAGE, WP:INHERITED, and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. All of these have been put forward as a reason to keep, by editors who've either made few edits, or haven't edited in over a year or more.

One editor has already admitted that they coordinated with another editor offline on the article, and it looks a lot like one editor or another has been WP:Canvassing offline for support on this discussion.

As noted at the top of this page, this is not a ballot. If you want the page to be kept, you need to start making the case for notability based on its guidelines for inclusion. Consensus here is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Please refer to WP:BIO and WP:GNG for what makes a person notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Storchy (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Legallife103's sock's comments have already been stricken; from the CU data, I am very confident that Legallife103 was themselves evading a block on a previous account, so I am also striking their comments above. Also note that the other 'keep' comes from The contentor, who I have just blocked for operating multiple accounts - there is more at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The contentor. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a wonderful mess! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Chwee Teck[edit]

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

I improved the article by adding reliable sources and removing unsourced context. It was marked as reviewed but after about two mounts a Extended confirmed user moved article to draft, instead of improving that. Now, please check out the notability of subject and improve the article if you think it needs. Regards. Dejaqo (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Singapore. Dejaqo (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per WP:SKCRIT. There's no deletion rationale indicated in the nomination. Nominator should be trouted for making this frivolous AfD. – robertsky (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep under WP:CSK #1 or #3. No objectives to it being re-nominated though properly. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devekut[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This essay-like page on esoteric religious terminology provides no real evidence of substantial discussion of the topic as a subject in its own right, and is almost entirely unsourced and dauntingly unencyclopedic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Judaism. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major concept in Jewish mysticism. Clearly notable topic (just search g-scholar etc). You just added a maintenance tag, so give it time to work. Or discuss specific sections to trim or delete. Or trim unsourced as you see fit. Or put in requests for editing assistance or comments. My two cents. ProfGray (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sample sources:

Schmidt, Gilya G. "Cleaving to God" through the ages: An historical analysis of the Jewish concept of" devekut." Mystics Quarterly 21, no. 4 (1995): 103-120.

Goldberg, Joel R. Yechiel Shalom. Mystical union, individuality, and individuation in Provençal and Catalonian Kabbalah. New York University, 2001.

Pachter, Mordechai. "The Concept of Devekut in the Homiletical Ethical Writings of 16th Century Safed." Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature 2 (1984): 171-230.

Scholem, Gershom. "Devekut, or Com-munion with God." Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, and Other Essays in Jewish Spirituality (New York, 1971): 203-227. ProfGray (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture has an entry on p.133-134 and provides further references. Vexations (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but the concept is a notable one that is covered at length and in depth in books (see this search in Google Books) and in scholarly literature (see this search). There are ample references available in reliable and verifiable sources that demonstrate that this is an encyclopedic topic with "real evidence of substantial discussion of the topic as a subject in its own right". These materials could be and should be used to address any issues with sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no doubt that it is exists as a term in Jewish mysticism, and that it has been written about, but from purveying the sources I would question whether it is necessarily a "major concept". Many sources note the fluctuating usage of the term. But assuming a coherent encyclopedia entry can be written about the topic, reforming this particular article may actually be more energy intensive than starting from scratch. I only hope some volunteers emerge to improve it, because given the shoddy sourcing of the current OR essay, WP:TNT seems a more viable option to me. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of good sources online, including Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Ha! If even Britannica, the mother of all aggregators, is only able to come up with a two-paragraph stub, that is hardly a glowing testament to its notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule against short articles, so long as they're well sourced. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced and WP:N article central to Kaballah as well. This article should never have been renominated for deletion given the strong WP:CONSENSUS to Keep it in the first nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devekut. IZAK (talk) 21:07, 3 August 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!} 07:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K7 Computing[edit]

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

Not passing WP:NCORP, the sources are not indepth and independent. No notable sources are available. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Software, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K7 products are widely known and reputed product in India. I have added few links from news. Will keep adding more information with source. So, hold on the deleting process. Sulthan (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article doesn't cite reliable source that cover subject significantly, so I agree with nominator. Fails WP:NCORP.Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of passing WP:NCORP. I also note that this article has had problems since 2008 (not saying the creator has a COI—it just casts doubt on its suitability), and it's unlikely its notability will change any time soon. Sulthan90, Wikipedia's guidelines for companies are much more stringent than guidelines for most other topics, and even if a product or company is "widely known and reputed", that is not sufficient for notability. Ovinus (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 1 August 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 Self-harm. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh syndrome[edit]

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

The first issue here is a failed verification for notability of the article name.

Self harm is a GA, one of the few GAs on psychology. Neighboring on a virtually identical topic is this article. There are only two citations supporting the phrase "van gogh syndrome" - one is in a 1966 case study, and the other one [26] has a broken DOI and the document is two pages long simply reporting the case study and citing ^[1] which I don't have access to and does not mention van gogh syndrome in the abstract.

The article had copyvio to the DSM-5 which I just paraphrased, an older copyvio to this abstract, a possibly infringing link which I have tagged, and its citations don't establish notability for the term in the title. It also seems to still be based on OR, some of which I have tagged.

I tried looking for citations on Google Scholar about it, and the first result I find leaves me exceptionally surprised:

Van Gogh syndrome’ is not in the ICD-10 (International Classification of Disease) nor DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual). It is defined not in the medical literature but on Wikipedia, where it is considered a synonym for NSSI (Non-suicidal Self-Injury)
[...] The erratic nature of reporting means we cannot rule out selection bias: in other words, the common assumption that Van Gogh was psychotic (repeated by the Wikipedia article) seems to have created an expectation in the literature that the term ‘Van Gogh’ syndrome is reserved for psychotic patients who indulge in extreme self-harm.
[...] Finally, Wikipedia acknowledges that ‘Van Gogh’ syndrome can also be used to describe digoxin toxicity (again based on speculative biography) which further highlights the perils of eponymous syndromes!^[2]

In other words, the OR in this article has created ripple effects in psychology research. I can actually find a few research publications which have frankly taken WP:CIRCULAR way too far by electing to include Van Gogh syndrome in the title possibly just because of this Wikipedia article. I can't say I've seen that before.

Reading the rest of that quoted source (I encourage anyone contributing to consensus at this AfD to do so), it appears the author interpreted the original research as at least partially valid. So now if we want to keep the content of this article, we face a problem that its notability is established purely by the circular referencing that this article ended up creating. Perhaps the worst part of this is that in its current state I'm not even sure the article gets across the idea that "‘Van Gogh’ syndrome is reserved for psychotic patients who indulge in extreme self-harm".

So I'm proposing one of two options. (1) is to delete the article (I don't think any content at all can be salvaged to the self-harm GA, beyond perhaps a sentence mentioning the case study in due weight). (2) is to move the page to a name which does meet notability for a NSSI disorder, and focus on the NSSI disorder research. My hesitance for (2) and feeling necessity for using AfD is because I think although at least some of the sources in the article are reliable, I think any comprehensive article on NSSI disorder would probably need to start from scratch as far as writing, and it's not clear to me that an article on NSSI disorder would even pass a notability test considering how thorough the self harm GA already is.

(3) Aside from those two approaches, perhaps it is notable enough purely on the basis of being an meta-example of WP:CIRCULAR as a meta-topic that the article should indeed remain, but be substantially restructured/rewritten to cover that aspect - notwithstanding the creation of a specific article for NSSI disorder. I'm really not sure about that though, the quoted source is the only published source I can find to comment on the matter which makes me think deletion may be preferable. Of course, I'm open to any other suggestions about how to remedy this. Maybe it's better to do an RfC about this since the self harm article is rated high priority - any advice would be appreciated.

References

^ {{Cite journal date=March 1991 title=Self-injurious behavior: a review of the behavior and biology of self- mutilation url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ajp.148.3.306 journal=American Journal of Psychiatry volume=148 issue=3 pages=306–317 doi=10.1176/ajp.148.3.306 issn=0002-953X}}
^ {{Cite journal last=Murray first=Brian date=July 2020 title=‘Van Gogh’ syndrome: a term to approach with caution url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2020-100210 journal=General Psychiatry volume=33 issue=5 pages=e100210 doi=10.1136/gpsych-2020-100210 issn=2517-729X}}

Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Psychology. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes WP:GNG .GorgonaJS (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The citogenesis cycle must be broken. I concur that any comprehensive article on NSSI disorder would probably need to start from scratch. For obvious reasons, we have high standards for sourcing on medical topics, and this is a long way from meeting them. XOR'easter (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm all ears to find out what happens to this discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All ear. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
The official song of the London branch of the Van Gogh fan club: "Hail, Hail, the Gang's All 'Ere". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Self-harm. Doesn’t have enough good sources to meet WP:MEDRS levels of sourcing. This is a fascinating case and deserves to be catalogued in WP:CITOGENESIS. I thank the nominator for doing this research. Ovinus (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle I haven't looked closely at the sources (yes, big mistake) but it seems like this article could be moved to a less OR title. I think the information in the article is valid, but the named syndrome is incorrect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle "Non-suicidal self injury", and remove the misleading information about Van Gogh. Most of the article is about NSSI anyway, and there are enough good sources here to build off. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ficaia: What is the difference between Self-harm and NSSI, though? Not a rhetorical question; I don't really know, but "self-harm" to me seems to imply lack of suicidal intent. Otherwise it's just "attempted suicide". [27] adopts a broad definition (for self-harm) of any self-injurious behavior, suicidal intent or not, but says the WHO restricts it to behavior without suicidal intent. Ovinus (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect or retitle/move to the main article. Andrevan@ 21:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect or retitle/move to the main article in absence of a more suitable title. Information valid, name not. Sourcing could be improved. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is split between keep (but retitle?) and delete (or merge?).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Self-harm (and delete the current content) on the grounds that there is nothing here that could form a basis of a new article on NSSI that isn't already covered in the Self-harm article, and no one has adequately explained why we need a separate article on NSSI anyway (isn't it the same thing as self-harm?). If we really want to mention the story of how Wikipedia created a new name for the condition, this could be covered by a single sentence added to the self-harm article, "NSSI has been referred to as Van Gogh syndrome as a result of a former article in the English Wikipedia which used the name" + ref. We can't even call it a notable example of a circular citation because we haven't got a secondary source discussing it as an example of Wikipedia-induced circular referencing. I'm open to the suggestion that if it's not a notable example of circular citation, we don't even need the redirect, but redirects are cheap and harmless. Elemimele (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, interpreting the article optimistically it's referring to "NSSI disorder" and not just NSSI. Eg. see this highly cited paper proposing the concept: [28] Although the concept is technically distinct, it's not clear if it is distinct on notability grounds since the diagnosis itself is not widely accepted or used, and referring to NSSI disorder in my short literature review it seems to often just be a functional term for "chronic self harm" which isn't distinct from content in the existing self harm article as far as I can tell. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And break the cycle, as noted above by XOR'easter. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Self-harm. There is nothing that distinguishes this article from the more general one at the common name. NSSI and Self Harm are two names for the same thing in the mainstream literature. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merger required) per Guerillero. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the scholarly interest in this syndrome is insufficient to qualify for an article and a merger should also be avoided. Draken Bowser (talk) 00:48, 29 July 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 (WP:A7). Article was speedy deleted under A7 earlier today by Bbb23, making this a speedy delete and closed. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 19:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School Yard Boy(album[edit]

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

Album is not notable, and claims in it are unverifiable (I couldn't e.g. find a trace of the album or the singles at Billboard, and the claim that "Gang Gand" peaked at 125 in the Billboard Global 200, when that song has received next to no attention at all[29], is highly unlikely. Fram (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The claims fail WP:V and without the claims being met, it's arguably thereby eligible for speedy deletion under A9, but it also, from a more conservative policy basis, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. TartarTorte 14:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced cruft, almost unreadable article, no claim to notability, agree A9 also agree WP:GNG; WP:NALBUM. Also WOFT. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A9. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:26, 28 July 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!} 00:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justlife[edit]

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

Draftified, draft submission declined, user just recreated article in mainspace and it's not WP:GNG and certainly not WP:NCORP. Can't draftify 'cos of existing draft, so am suggesting this mainspace article is deleted until the draft passes AfC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real developments since the last AfD.-KH-1 (talk) 06:29, 28 July 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 Porter (beer). Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obadiah Poundage[edit]

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

Does not seem to warrant an article, per WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Still, his (one) letter is cited in a number of popular histories of brewing in reference to the impact of beer taxes (and Goose Island Brewery apparently named a beer in his 'honour') so I'm a bit on the fence about this one. Ploni (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, United Kingdom, and England. Ploni (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think setting it up as a biography of a brewer is a mistake, and that's what makes it appear to have dubious notability. It's not the brewer who is notable, it is the letter he wrote under the name of Obadiah Poundage. We don't actually know who the brewer was. The letter has notability, it is written about in reliable sources, and it is known by the name Obadiah Poundage. Article needs refocusing, expanding and more sources, but the topic is notable enough to be a standalone article. SilkTork (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge to, say, Porter (beer) would be best? This definitely belongs somewhere on Wikipedia – it's mentioned in quite a few reliable sources – so I'd oppose outright deletion. But that doesn't mean that a stand-alone page is necessarily the best option, and here I'm not sure it is. WP:NOPAGE lists a few factors to guide our "editorial judgment" on these types of questions; they include the available sourcing and the need for context. Sourcing is fairly limited (lots of brief mentions, but little in-depth coverage). And this letter is mainly a piece of evidence in a broader narrative about the history of porter, so including it in the main article (where the whole narrative can be discussed) would provide useful context for the reader, in my view. Not opposed to a keep (though if kept, the article should probably be moved to Obadiah Poundage letter to get around the BIO1E issue), but I think a merge might be preferable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider a possible merger...what would the target be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Obadiah Poundage Letter. Seems an elegant enough solution, to me. If more context were added, 'twere well done... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Porter (beer). Most of the article reproduces the letter, which is inappropriate (WP:NOTREPOSITORY). The remaining information would fit well in the article about porter; per WP:SS subarticles should be spun out only if they are long enough, which is not the case here if we omit the letter. Sandstein 06:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ATD Merge to Porter (beer) per Extraordinary Writ as Obadiah Poundage letter. This is a one sourced letter and not a biography. Fails GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:44, 7 August 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bioshaft[edit]

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

Unable to find significant independent coverage. The search term "Bioshaft" turns up almost exclusively articles on wastewater treatment systems. – Ploni (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Venezuela. Ploni (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was created on 2012, but ever since the band has received additional coverage that could allow WP:GNG to be met, specifically regarding the recording of a collaborative CD, "Rock contra la dictadura" ([30][31][32]). I can help with these changes if needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It did get some press for "Rock contra la dictadura" in 2018, but there are only 3 sources available on that that I found that mention Bioshaft specifically. 1 is of questionable reliability (don't know if Diario de Cuba is reliable) and the link to the article in El Mundo appears to be dead. In any case, the album itself was a collaboration of 17 Venezuelan bands of which Bioshaft was only one, and those articles appear to only have a brief mention of Bioshaft as one of the 17 bands without providing any kind of coverage that can be used to establish notability. The article has a very promotional tone, and almost all of it is totally unsourced. Even if the band becomes notable in the future, it would probably be just as easy to start from scratch than to try to improve this article. Chagropango (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Mundo's link is still active, although you can try accessing its content through Web Archive:[33]. However, admittedly due to the article's tone WP:TNT might apply. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. No idea whether they are notable, but the article is entirely self-promotional junk and meets WP:G11. Sandstein 06:50, 5 August 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!} 00:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Indian Law Firms[edit]

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

Non notable per WP:NORG User4edits (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to have only received coverage consisting of passing mentions, plus a couple of probably unreliable trade publications. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliabad-e Qotb ol Din[edit]

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

Mass-created geostubs by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) based on the 2006 Iranian census. Said census grouped people based on the nearest named structure, and is not an indicator of legal recognition per WP:NGEO. Tolombeh (تلمبه), also romanized as talambeh, means pump in Persian, so it is highly unlikely that any place names containing tolombeh are actually villages. There are 116 articles with such a name, including 1 which is already at AfD, and 2 disambiguation pages which will be deleted per G14 if this AfD closes as delete and Hojjarat-ye Panj is deleted by PROD. Some entries do not have coordinates or are below the minimum size defined for a village in Iran.

All articles with names containing Tolombeh, except those which are already at AfD or PROD

Aliabad-e Qotb ol Din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Takht Khvajeh-ye Bala)
Bizhanabad, Bardsir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Bizhanabad)
Bodir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Bahman)
Deh Bagh, Razavi Khorasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Chah Tolombeh-ye Bani Etemad)
Deh Borz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Deh Borz)
Deh Torkan, Kerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Deh Torkan)
Fakhrabad-e Yek, Sirjan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Fakhrabad)
Firuzeh, Kerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Firuzeh)
Hoseynabad-e Khan, Ekhtiarabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Hoseynabad Huz Daq)
Jalalabad-e Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Jalalabad)
Khorasani, Fars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Khorasani)
Madan Raz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Madan Raz — article also covers another Madan Raz in the same area, which also does not seem to exist)
Mazraeh va Tolombeh-ye Shahid Doktar Chamran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mehdiabad, Ekhtiarabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Hasan Naft)
Mobarak Hoseyni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Mobarak Hoseyn)
Mohammadabad-e Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Mohammadabad-e Mirza'i)
Mohammad Hasan Beyg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Chah Tolombeh-ye Hasan Qarai)
Moradabad, Arzuiyeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Moradabad)
Nowkan, Kerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Nukan)
Posht Asbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Fathabad)
Rezaabad-e Yek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Rezaabad)
Rezvanabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Rezvan)
Salehabad, Hajjiabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Seyyed Toghra)
Surmandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Surmandi)
Talambeh Khaneh Pol Baba Hoseyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Amiq-e Chah Galleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Amiq-e Shomareh-ye Yek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Amiq-e Tareh Ashayiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Hay-e Eslamabad-e Yek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Hay-e Malusjan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-Khaneh Razan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Khaneh Shomareh Seh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Khaneh-ye Afarineh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Khaneh-ye Sabzab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Khaneh-ye Shorket Nafat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Khaneh-ye Tang-e Fani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh Sarbozi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh va Mazraeh-ye Montazeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye 17 Shahrivar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ab Barkhshuiyeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Abbasabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Abbaslu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Abbas Salehi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ahmadabad-e Sargorich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ali Cheragh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ali Reza Yarahmadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Arg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Arj Yarahmadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ashayiri Deh Gowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ashayiri Eman Allah Yazdanian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ashayiri Hasan Karimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ashayiri Mohammadi Sardak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ashayiri Mohammad Reza Khani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ashayiri Moradiasar-e Sargrij (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ashayiri Yadollah va Shorka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Ashayir Soleymani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Azami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Baqer Mohammadi Fariyab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Chah Gaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Chatrudiha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Dad Abbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Deh Panah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Garuh Sajad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Golshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Hajji Azam Pur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Haykatabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Hojjarat-ye Chahar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Hojjarat-ye Seh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Hojjatabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Hoseynabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Hoseynabad-e Heydar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Hoseyn Nasereh va Shorka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Hoseyn Yarahmadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Javad Amiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Javdani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Jelal Brahuyi Fariyab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Kazemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Kordshuli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Kuh Khvajui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Kuhzad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Malek Daldari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Maleki Ramsar Fariyab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Mansur Brahuyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Mastazefin Chah Rigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Mohajeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Mohammad Basti Pur Fariyab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Mohammad Robati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Mokhtar Kahurabadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Musa Pishkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Nabvi Mohammadabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Naseriyeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Nejamiha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Qalandari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Rahim Pur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Rahmat Allah Sharifi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Rig Chamran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Safaiyeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Sahab ol Zeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Seyyedeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Seyyed Mohammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Shahdai Haft Tir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Shahid Allah Verdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Shahid Amir Kafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Shahid Beheshti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Shahid Matheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Shahid Taktaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Shahid Zangiabadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Sharafuiyeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Shirzad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Tal Bur-e Yek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Vahdat Mohammad Kafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Yadollah Khalaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Yarollah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolombeh-ye Zaghi Arzini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vasilabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect from Tolombeh-ye Vasilabad)

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AWB will be needed to AfD-tag all of these pages; there is also a request filed at WP:AWBREQ about the same. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. The verifiability policy requires us to have at least one independent reliable source about a subject before we can have an article on it, and the burden of proof is on those who want to retain the content. These stubs are all sourced to the Iranian census (which as the nominator explains is not reliable) and the GEOnet Names Server (which is also not reliable for the existence of places). Furthermore WP:GEOLAND only grants near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, and notes that regions defined for censuses do not qualify by this metric, so the subjects would have to pass the WP:GNG anyway. Hut 8.5 11:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: In terms of GEOLAND#1 as far as I'm aware it generally covers things like administrative units such as formal regions (such as East of England, states (such as Suffolk), districts (such as Maldon District), municipalities (such as Stanwix Rural) and other places with at least some function (such as Brunstock, formerly a township) or Waveney (UK Parliament constituency)). For other places with census data as long as the place is a settlement or other on the ground feature like Howe Green, Chelmsford I think GEOLAND#1 would be satisfied. A long-standing exception is census tracts since they are generally random areas with no administrative function and nothing on the ground. Abadi and the like may be an exception if they aren't settlements but that's debatable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that these aren't presumed to be notable just for being areas included in the census. GEOLAND #1 doesn't apply to anything that isn't a populated place, and it sounds like this census just grouped people by the nearest landmark in some cases, in which case these may not be populated places. And GEOLAND can't overrule WP:V - unless we have a reliable source which says something is a populated place then we can't call it one. Hut 8.5 11:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 - 100% agree. You should see some of the discussions we have with some of these other articles. One currently-live AFD is deadlocked because one editor thinks that "there's a road that has that name that leads to a point near to the co-ordinates in Geonames for this abadi" is sufficient proof to keep the article. Never mind that Geonames is an unreliable Wiki-like source. Never mind that there's no actual evidence of legal recognition. Never mind that it's not really possible to tell what something is just from looking at it in a satellite image. FOARP (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Yes, even the ones that are just redirects from a Title including the word "Tolombeh" as these don't even appear in the Iranian census under their supposed non-Tolombeh names as far as I can determine (Ctrl+F for the Farsi name in the spreadsheet turns up no hits with the ones I spot-checked). I think these were the ones Carlos made after he began to realise what these Abadi actually were but he thought hat he could fix it just by taking out the word "pump".

These abadi are mere locations used for counting the Iranian census. They do not have to be villages, but can be just wells, petrol stations, bridges, shops, etc. etc. around which people were counted. In fact 23% of Abadi have no people at all, and may never have been populated. In this case the term "pump" strongly suggests that every one of these is just a pump that has been used as a reference point. Since these are not legally-recognised communities, but only reference-points used in a census and therefore the equivalent of census-tracts, this fails WP:GEOLAND#1, and as there is no significant coverage they also fail WP:GNG. Use of GEONet Names Server does not fix this, because GNS is also an unreliable source per the RSN discussion. It is not clear where the location data associated with some of these articles comes from, and it often points to empty fields. Even when it does point to something that is maybe a village, how are we to say without engaging in OR that is is a village? And if it is a village, how do you know it is known by the name used in the article?

Yadda yadda yadda - I've written these same arguments over and over for years now with Carlossuarez46's mass-produced Iranian stub articles and I'm really tired of it, just as I'm sure that others are tired of reading these AFDs over and over are. I thought when we first started on Carlossuarez46's articles after the ARBCOM case against them that people would see quicker than this just how harmful this mass-creation can be, but people still resist doing anything that's really going to make an impact on it. We need to be given better tools for cleaning up these stubs, and yes that means mass-deleting all the ones that we made in a mass-creation session based on bad sources and haven't been improved since. FOARP (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Agreed, we should delete all remaining articles that are Iran village stubs created by Carlossuarez46 and contain no nontrivial content, probably in an RfC-like venue. There a few other categories of pages where he created similar problems, which can generally be handled manually. Should we also create a standalone documentation page of this incident, like Wikipedia:Fabricated articles and hoaxes of Russia in 2022? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per V and Geoland. Avilich (talk) 13:29, 31 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zibraaz Sahib[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International with over 10 caps. Has coverage: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39].--Mvqr (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THe first source primarily relies on an interview with the subject, and is not independent of the subject. The second, third, fifth and sixth sources mention the subject once each, the fourth, twice, clearly a fail of WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Mvqr. Besides the sources he found, I found these sources with shoe he is notable in Fiji: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 among many other sources. In addition, he is captain of his club team and a 14-time international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mvqr and Das osmnezz which shows subject passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by User:Mvqr and User:Das osmnezz. In particular, the first source from Mvqr is published by Fiji Sun, a leading news publication in Fiji. While this source includes an interview with the subject as a part of the article, the article is published by a news publication unaffiliated with Sahib or his club. While User:Sportsfan 1234 complains about the balance of sources having only one or two mentions of the subject, there are enough of these sources to justify a clear pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 12:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject of articles in Fiji Sun, Fiji Village, Fiji Times and Fiji Live so clearly a notable Fijian sportsperson. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:19, 2 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amani Makoe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman: I found sources which show he is notable in Fiji: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48] among many many other sources at Fiji Times, FBC News, Fiji Sun, Fiji Village, Fiji Live, and Fiji Football. In addition, he is a captain and 10-time international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources brought up by User:Das osmnezz. Very clear pass of GNG. Frank Anchor 14:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Das osmnezz passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 2 August 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 Canada men's international soccer players. ✗plicit 04:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Breganski[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources and hardly qualifies as an athlete for our purposes, one non-competitive game. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any coverage of playing career outside of routine coverage of the single friendly, and I can't find anything else about him except that he was an assistant coach for McGill Redbirds football after he retired from playing. No SIGCOV is available online; fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Canada men's international soccer players as likely search term. Giant Snowman 20:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding some coverage, e.g. [49] and [50], probably not enough for GNG though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there's undoubtedly significant coverages in 1970s newspapers - the issue is finding it. Giant Snowman 20:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Canada men's international soccer players. I found only five matches on newspapers.com, all of them routine coverage. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No working sources on the page, and little information provided about the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmateurGolfer01 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Canada men's international soccer players; WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 4 August 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. A request to rename the article should be made following the instructions at WP:RM. ✗plicit 04:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tetragrammatons in art in Austria[edit]

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

I propose dropping the list and merging a small amount of content from the intro into Tetragrammaton#Usage in art.

The scope is probably overly specific; we don't have similar lists for any other countries or genres. We do have a broader summary of textual use in Tetragrammaton. Tetragrammaton#Usage in art should probably link here if kept. Beland (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Religion, and Austria. Beland (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a theme which appears so frequently in artwork that it probably deserves a page of its own, but I think you are right that limiting it to Austrian art may be too narrow in scope. What about changing the page title to a general page on the the tetragrammaton in art, or tetragrammaton in Christian art, and making the list part of a collapsible subsection for Austria? This way the page could eventually be expanded to include appearances in other countries.

This would not be hard to do, as most of the lead section is not specific to Austria at all. It looks like there are more resources in Tetragrammaton in Christian art in the Czech Republic to work with in expanding it. Chagropango (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced as a stand-alone topic (if other editors would want to put in the time and research it took to create this for another country that seems fine too, but this one covers a single country-wide topic well). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what's the argument for deletion? Give policies please, there are none in the nom. It may be "over-specific" but so are half the lists on WP. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. If someone wants to make a list of Tetragrammatons in art and then whenever there were enough entries to split off into a side list by country, then that'd make sense. This article is long enough to be on its own though. Well referenced and a notable aspect mentioned in things. Dream Focus 15:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Remove "in Austria", I don't see any reason to limit this list in such way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should keep the present name because of its size (look at the size of the page). If someone wants to make other lists about the same topic they can be separate by continent or something, but Austria seems to have a boatload of these and that is reflected well in this stand-alone page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be misleading to rename it while the whole list is about Austria. And wildly optimistic to think that anyone is going to add many from other countries. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Note that neither the nomination nor the withdrawal came with much explanation. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Shaw (singer)[edit]

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

Extent of notability unclear Mooonswimmer 01:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Mooonswimmer 14:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] {{Cite journal date=March 1991 title=Self-injurious behavior: a review of the behavior and biology of self- mutilation url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ajp.148.3.306 journal=American Journal of Psychiatry volume=148 issue=3 pages=306–317 doi=10.1176/ajp.148.3.306 issn=0002-953X}}

[2] {{Cite journal last=Murray first=Brian date=July 2020 title=‘Van Gogh’ syndrome: a term to approach with caution url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2020-100210 journal=General Psychiatry volume=33 issue=5 pages=e100210 doi=10.1136/gpsych-2020-100210 issn=2517-729X}}

[1]

[2]