Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 07	July 09 >

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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Lane, Indiana[edit]

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

PROD was refused for this neighborhood of South Bend with several newspaper.com clippings attached. That it is such a neighborhood now is inarguable; it's within the city limits, and may have been so for half a century or more. As such it is referenced in South Bend newspapers, but that doesn't cut it for notability, so the question is, what was going on before the city limits moved? At this juncture I must point out that "Maple Lane" is the name of the street that runs north/south roughly through the middle of the area. Topos and aerials only go back into the 1950s, and this area is older, but perhaps not by much: driving around the neighborhood suggests that the houses are mostly postwar. At any rate, I find nothing that says it was ever a town unto itself. Mangoe (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ––FormalDude talk 07:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to be at delete on this one. The majority of the cites given in the declined prod, and in my own search, were about plans to repurpose a school in the locality for military storage. These articles are not about the community. The don't even verify that there is a community, only that a street of that name exists. That was until I saw this clipping which shows that it was proposed in the 1950s that Maple Lane should form its own incorporated community. This was while it was nominally part of Clay Township but before expansion of that town had fully absorbed it. That is enough to show that this was once an independent community for the purposes of WP:GEOLAND. SpinningSpark 08:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read through these PRODs, and by and large agree with them. Occasionally, however, I find one that is not like the others. I would encourage anyone who is researching this AFD to look at Newspapers.com, where there are a wealth of articles about Maple Lane, and clearly not as a street. There exists or once existed schools, school districts, churches and more. It was a 950-acre neighborhood started in 1922 with fanfare. Annexation discussions were held over a period of many years (I found it in articles from 1957 and 1958, the annexation ~~happened~~ was proposed in 1971, heavily opposed by the Maple Lane residents, and then there was a bill to ~~de-annex~~ give up on annexing it in 1977). The area (not just the school) was a source of controversy during the desegregation of public schools (over a period of years). This article deserves to exist per both WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Here are a few of the sources I used in coming to this conclusion. This annexation discussion from 1957 states there were 1,800 homes and at least 5,500 in population in the "Maple Lane area". Maple Lane residents oppose annexation, schools discussion (1958) annexation repeal bill (1977). Not for notability, but for interest here's a sales add for lots in 1922. There is lots more. In any case, meets both GEOLAND and GNG. Jacona (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maple Lane is 100 years old this year! Jacona (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per proper BEFORE conducted per Jacona. Djflem (talk) 20:02, 13 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!} 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council election[edit]

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

Non notable future event (t · c) buidhe 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chennai Super Kings Lover, Mhawk10, and MPGuy2824: (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't go as far as to say it is non-notable, since the TTAADC covers about 2/3rd of the state's area and 1/3rd of its population. That said, it is many years in the future, and is not guaranteed to be in 2026. If someone can find good sources about it, then a rename to Next Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council election is warranted. If not, delete. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely to be notable closer to the event, but as WP:NEVENTS makes it clear we need at least GNG coverage of the future event for it to be notable right now, in 2022. I was not able to find such coverage. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with MPGuy2824; the event is notable, but there's simply no sourcing at this moment to justify an article. (I've not not looked, but wouldn't be surprised if in Bangla media there is a mention of the 2026 election, but it is safe to assume it would be no more than passing). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Too Soon and fails WP:GNG since there is no significant coverage. Dhruv edits (talk) 15:10, 12 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 08:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ester Nurumi Tri Wardoyo[edit]

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

Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:NBAD zoglophie 11:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. zoglophie 11:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This was soft deleted in April. The fact that no one seems to have noticed the discrepancy between the girls' badminton tournaments the athlete competes in and the male pronouns used in the article -- the latter with zero sourcing -- is a testament to how problematic it is to have so many unmonitorable sportsperson BLPs on people who do not get independent media attention. If they identify as a boy, ok, but we have no way of knowing this and it could just as easily be an attack page. Because all the RS coverage is passing mentions in girls and women's badminton articles, there is nothing to support the current gender claims on the page and the potential harm is enough to warrant speedy deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:47, 7 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!} 23:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of evidence that this person passes WP:GNG. I note that there is no specific notability criterion for badminton players that I can find. Also, the male pronouns in the article seem more likely to be the result of a poor translation from Indonesian, a language which generally lacks grammatical gender, rather than a comment on the person's gender identity or an attack against them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 9 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 Mi Macro Calzada. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fray Angélico bus station[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NPLACE. No WP:SIGCOV about it and the given sources do not demonstrate notability. – Meena • 22:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Mexico. – Meena • 22:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Meena feel free to delete the article or to move it to draft namespace. I created it with the purpose to expand it soon after, but I have not had the time to research the topic, and it's not in my priorities at the moment SistemaRayoXP (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no coverage to suggest that this particular bus stop is notable, and I don't see any value in redirecting it back to its parent system's article. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Mi Macro Calzada as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 20:14, 6 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!} 22:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mi Macro Calzada. I don't understand the opposition to redirecting. There is certainly no rationale in guidelines for deleting such a redirect at WP:R#DELETE. SpinningSpark 09:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge into Mi Macro Calzada. It does not appear that there's enough there to justify a standalone article, but the content would be beneficial to the parent article. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:50, 12 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. Sources found that meet NBOOK. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ME: A Novel of Self-Discovery[edit]

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

Novel doesn't appear to be notable, the only sources I could find were single-line encyclopedia entries ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 21:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 21:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — perhaps my search engine don't really get the deal but I couldn't find anything. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 16:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book received a lengthy review (~850 words) in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction by Algis Budrys. According to ISFDB, it was also reviewed by Paul J. McAuley for Interzone. I've incorporated Budrys's review into the article as well another review in Kliatt and its nomination for the 1992 Prometheus Award. Redirecting to Thomas Thurston Thomas is an alternative to deletion here, but I suspect there's enough for an WP:NBOOK keep. DanCherek (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like to see the Interzone review, it's available in the Internet Archive here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DanCherek has found some solid sources, and there's also a roughly 300-word review by Jim Hopper in the San Diego Tribune, Dec. 27, 1991, p. C3 (available through Newsbank here). I'd be surprised if additional coverage (e.g. in magazine articles) didn't exist offline, but regardless I think the sources we have – Budrys, McAuley, Kliatt, and the Tribune – are just enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK/the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:07, 8 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!} 22:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOOK due to the reviews discussed above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:37, 8 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 14:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Project Management[edit]

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

Bad faith article creation, could not find sufficient sources containing in-depth coverage to meet notability per WP:NORG, and the current sources are a blog and a passing mention. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 6 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!} 22:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 14 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!} 03:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Port Management[edit]

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

Bad faith article creation, could not find sufficient sources containing in-depth coverage to meet notability per WP:NORG, and the current sources are all primary or passing mentions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 6 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!} 22:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. 3 passing mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 14 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Spaces[edit]

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

Non-charting song from Pink Floyd's The Wall. The song is described in passing in sources that talk about The Wall. Its back-masking (reversed audio message) is discussed by self-published websites that don't add notability, and also by the BBC in a piece about back-masking in general.[1] Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem The backwards messaging is discussed in the song's entry in

Andy Mabbett (2010), Pink Floyd: The Music and the Mystery, Omnibus Press, Wikidata Q25766745

which is neither self published nor "about back-masking in general". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andy. SpinningSpark 09:08, 3 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!} 22:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG. The sources in the article, including the ones presented above, are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a little high on geek trivia, but Pink Floyd has such an intellectual following that all of their songs including this one are heavily analyzed in various mass-market books (those already mentioned, plus [2], [3], [4] among many others), and this one received additional attention due to the backmasking. The article can actually be cleaned up and expanded given the available sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 11 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 with the understanding that the article needs a serious overhaul. SouthernNights (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of locomotives[edit]

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

Extremely old and outdated list that duplicates Category:Locomotives . Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because:
1. Old and outdated? it can be updated, not a reason to delete. The essay WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP A common maxim is that "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet.
2. Duplicating? The guideline WP:NOTDUP says It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. CT55555 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a clear case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; no amount of cleanup can make this list useful. "Locomotives" is far, far too broad a category for a complete list to be of any use. A complete list would be absolutely massive: a back-of-the-envelope count suggests something like 2,000 current articles on locomotive classes, which would probably double when including all the non-notable small-batch classes of early steam locomotives. That would be nearly impossible to assemble or maintain to any degree of quality - and would be less useful than the existing category tree under Category:Locomotives. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, very large lists of tens of thousands of items exist (eg historic sites, sensibly broken out into sublists) or millions in List of species. Sure have sections or sublists on locomotive classes vs individual famous locomotives. Do these exist already? Then it makes sense to have a world-wide overall introduction/index to the sublists. --Doncram (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of species literally redirects to Category:Lists of species --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Well, it would be wonderful if there were a wonderful written introduction to the topic and links to sublists there (lame reply, sorry). The 90,000 or so US NRHP historic sites are explicitly listed though, from List of RHPs. --Doncram (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That contains useful statisical information, though. I'm not sure what statistics a list of locomotives could present.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This comment from the article's creator at the first AfD in 2004 says it all, really: Delete. I was the article's creator; its functionality has been fully superseded by categories. It is redundant. Not all lists are replaceable by categories, but this one is. —Morven 00:15, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC) Per NOTDIRECTORY we do not need this list, and trying to fully populate it would be an exercise in futility anyhow. The keep vote is not at all persuasive to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been eighteen years; Morven could have changed their mind. NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The relevant policy/guidance is wp:CLN, which explains how categories and lists and navigation templates are complementary. A list can include references and details and photos and can be organized sensibly according to the topics. It can and should include an introduction where most significant list-items are explained. Importantly, it can include redlinks and sources supporting those topics importance, which categories cannot do at all. Generalizing, pretty much if there exists a category then there can be a list-article. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comments from 2004 are not relevant, that was long before tables were available in wikimedia and before standards and examples of great list-articles were created. I agree the list seems dead; the last talk-page discussion was in 2008. Where are the railroad enthusiasts?

The current list could/should be developed to include section on individual notable locomotives ( eg ones on historic registers ), perhaps organized by nation the province or state. And list locomotive models/classes organized by manufacturer. It should include sortable tables including photos. --Doncram (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s dead then why keep it? There’s very little actual content; why not just WP:TNT this crap and create a series of narrower lists (i.e. steam vs electric vs diesel) with tables? Dronebogus (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An overview/index to sublists is needed. Some would say this us then a "List of lists" or a "List of lists of lists" and delight in that. Calling for wp:TNT is an admission this is a valid topic, and then see wp:TNTTNT (essay to which I contributed) for multiple reasons deletion not appropriate. Doncram (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Category:Locomotives not provide a sufficient overview? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason given for deletion. the rules state that categories and lists can both cover the same thing, that list are better because they allow additional information so more useful at helping people find what they will be interested in reading. Dream Focus 04:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t just call any deletion reason you don’t like (i.e. 99% of them) “invalid”. being old, outdated, and redundant is a valid reason; you’re saying it’s an invalid application. Dronebogus (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a policy on valid reasons to delete here WP:DEL-REASON, so I think User:Dream_Focus is approaching the AfD in a very reasonable way. CT55555 (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That list of reasons isn't all-inclusive. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already linked to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. So redundant is not a valid reason. And old or outdated are not valid reasons either, see WP:OUTDATED. Dream Focus 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article listing every locomotive past and present is not practical per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Dronebogus (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a list of the notable ones, which seems a lot more reasonable. CT55555 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most locomotives I’d think are notable, and in any case that’s a given on WP so the point still stands. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean most classes of locomotives? Google suggests there are over 350,000 individual ones in the world, they are surely not all notable. That seems very unlikely. If every class of locomotive is notable, I don't see a big problem. We have lists of poets, writers, singers, and the world has many of them. If the lists gets overwhelming, it can be split up later by year/name/country etc. CT55555 (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a list of the notable ones, even if "notable" is being defined more narrowly than "is worthy of a Wikipedia article". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that notability is the exact definition of worthy of a wikipedia article, that's how we decide what gets articles, to me they are synonymous. CT55555 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories are more appropriate for such a broad topic such as locomotives as a whole, as per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Thee are plenty of encyclopedoas of rail, or books about locomotives (just click the Google Books link above). So I think WP:LISTN is met. This is suprisingly abandoned, unreferenced, etc., but I think encyclopedic (within our scope). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This needs improvement not deletion, but a list of individually notable locomotives (which seems to be what everything other than the New Zealand section lists) is clearly encyclopaedic per others above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A list of all the individual locomotives that have articles on Wikipedia would be massive. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it became too massive, it could be split. This is not a reason to delete. Wikipedia has lots of long lists and editors are quite capable of dealing with that. CT55555 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As CT55555 says, splitting lists that get too large is standard editorial practice and almost always entirely uncontroversial. In this case splitting off by country for those countries with large numbers of individually notable locomotives while retaining inline those countries with only a handful will match the way many other lists on Wikipedia are organised. If you think that is a reason for deletion then you've completely misunderstood both the purpose of deletion and the general concept of lists on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: categories not matched by list-articles can be horribly incomplete even re what Wikipedia covers: They omit articles which could/should be in a category, but just aren't. They omit redlinks. They omit items covered in lists within articles, such as a tabulation of locomotives within an article about a railway or a museum. They omit other significant mentions in regular articles, such as a town article mentioning a preserved locomotive in its park.

As an exercise just now, i did some analysis in Draft:List of preserved railroad locomotives in Colorado, identifying 49 items which should be in the system of categories. In fact i do see three in Category:Preserved steam locomotives of Colorado, yay. That's where i started my list from, actually. And there is one more that should be in that category but isn't, though it can be found by drilling down from Category:Locomotives in other ways. Categories omit one NRHP-listed one that is a redlink. But the categories completely miss 44 others that are individually tabulated within museum and railway articles. You cannot get to them.

Could the category system be fixed? Yes, by creating 44 redirects to the table rows, and putting appropriate categories on those redirects. But you cannot fix the categories if you don't have corresponding lists to work from. I !vote above that List of locomotives be kept and developed, and then all the categories can be improved. But assertions that existing categories "duplicate" what sensible explicit lists would include, are naive or just wrong, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not really inclined to create all 44 redirects and obsessively add categories to them; maybe i would for just the isolated ones in town articles or wherever so they will be noticeable, but not for the all those in groups at railway articles, say. But i would sorta "fix" the categories by adding mention, at the categories themselves, about the groups/lists that go towards "completing" them. It takes both to help each other get towards completeness of both. Having the explicit list out there attracts corrections, additions, too, as well as it advertises need to create missing articles. --Doncram (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's four more than the number listed on List of locomotives. And such a list would be impossibly long. It would need to instead be a list of lists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i see what u mean: that the manufacturers and railways currently listed at List of locomotives don't include any of these Colorado preserved ones. I'm not sure if drilling through the Baldwin Locomotive Works diesel-only sublists could get to one or two Baldwins in Colorado (which might be steam), or not. But touché, your point is correct: the current categories are likely better than currently indexed lists.

I still wanna see sublists of locomotives by location (for preserved ones that are relatively fixed), and other sublists, all to be indexed from the top. I don't personally like renames of lists to "List of lists of..." format, like i am sure categorizers would refuse to have categories renamed to be "Categories of categories of...". But yes, top-level world-wide lists often have only sublists as members; individual items tend to show up in second or third or fourth levels along with more sublists. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that such lists would duplicate information from the pages on individual railways/museums/etc. , and unless obsessively maintained would quickly become outdated. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every preserved locomotive is individually notable, not every individually notable locomotive is preserved, not every preserved locomotive is preserved in its country of origin (e.g. LNER Class A4 4496 Dwight D Eisenhower) and not every preserved locomotive is preserved at a notable location by a notable organisation; most locomotives in a railway's fleet are not individually notable. This list would be a more comprehensive list of locomotives than that at any individual institution. Those lists, where they exist, would be referenced as sources of more detailed information.

The claim that this will become quickly out of date is both (a) not a reason on its own to delete a list, and (b) also not true - once a locomotive is notable it is always notable, facts like it's type, manufacturer, and country of origin never change and locomotives becoming newly individually notable does not happen very often. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that a list of locomotives by geographical location would quickly become outdated, as locomotives move around. If it was "list of preserved locomotives built for X company" it could work, but then it doesn't seem to make sense to have "list of locomotives" only include links to lists of preserved locomotives. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one plans to limit the world-wide list of locomotives to cover just the preserved ones, or other relatively fixed ones. It is not currently limited that way. But some historic locomotives can be organized by nation where they operated, and some preserved ones in museums or on short tourist runs can be organized by more specific locations. Like for other sometimes moveable "places" on the US NRHP (eg buildings and covered bridges and other structures which do get moved sometimes, or objects such as ships, steamboats, or statues), it is not too hard to update locations occasionally when The General (locomotive) moves from one museum to another, or whatever. And we already deal with some "fuzzy" locations for some NRHP-listed locomotives that move between two terminuses of a line like the Cumbres one. --Doncram (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also there already do exist categories of locomotives organized by location, and I don't see any movement to ban those. Also IMO it is far more likely for Wikipedia to learn of a move, from the public, if they can see an explicit list of locomotives in a given state, say. Then the location-type category for the locomotive will also get updated, too, when the locomotive item is transferred from one state's list to another's. It is far easier to check a list than a category.

Anyhow, this is getting into issues best handled by editors at relevant Talk pages.

I may not respond to much further here. -Doncram (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By present geographical location is not the most sensible grouping for a list like this, however by country of origin (how it's currently organised) is. Regardless, a list needing to be updated every so often is not a reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to split up a list of preserved locomotives in certain countries like the UK or US, though. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the length of the list dictated it then they would be split off per WP:LISTSPLIT. None of the lists of preserved British locomotives confine themselves to individually notable locomotives (e.g. there are only 3 on List of preserved British industrial steam locomotives), but the existence of categories like Category:Preserved Great Western Railway steam locomotives argues for the creation of an accompanying list and also for the retention of this high level summary list. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many lists are there that limit themselves to only stuff notable enough for a Wiki page while there are similar lists that list everything?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists limited to only stuff notable enough for a Wikipedia article are 10-a-penny. Many of them also have more detailed lists about narrower sub-topics that have broader inclusion criteria. List of people associated with rail transport is an example I found after about a minute searching, although not perfect as the inclusion criteria are not clear, there are many sublists of people associated with rail transport in specific ways, places and/or times. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly a good example when it's also a rickety outdated shambles. An article that fits that definition that's actually maintained, please. It doesn't have to be rail-related. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of ways this could be handled. But I think most of us agree that trying to list every single locomotive class and individual notable locomotive on just a single list is near impossible. I think organizing by manufacturer would work well. See List of EMD locomotives and List of GE locomotives for examples of how long lists on just one manufacturer can get (and these are just classes without noting any notable individual locomotives). Listing them all on one page is impossible. The best solution with this is to turn it into a list of lists. Create an extra list for all of the one-offs like the Ingalls 4-S. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trainsandotherthings, this is an AFD proceeding, and you have not stated your !vote. I count the existing score as 5 !votes for "Delete" (counting the nominator), and 5 to "Keep". Your position, as I interpret it, is that you !vote "Keep". (Also, BTW, i think nominator User:Eldomtom2 should now state their view has changed to "Keep", perhaps as an amendment to the nomination-statement itself.) You do make observations that I interpret like "in a huge list that is split into many pages, the top-level list will probably best consist only of sublists, not any individual items" (i agree), and "so some could say that is a list of lists" (i agree, but note it is still a list), and maybe you want to rename the list-article (I don't agree, and a rename proposal is a different process for a different day). And maybe you have other editorial observations regarding organization, definition of list-item-notability, etc., which are suitable for the list-article's Talk page. For purpose of this AFD process, could you please just state "Keep" or "Delete"? Or not. Either way, i think that this is ready to be closed as "Keep" by a closer focused on the quality of the arguments. Although probably this will not be closed until June 29, after it has been open for 7 days. --Doncram (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think my view has changed to "Keep"?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. I agree that this list is duplicated by (or even better addressed by) the category. I also observe that this article has not been seriously maintained at, well, any point in its history really. But in this case, we have an uncomplicated topic ("locomotives", not an "X of Y" type) that as far as I can tell does not present any problems if not kept up-to-the-minute - that is, any information (appropriately) added to it will never go out of date (it's "list of locomotives" not "list of locomotives currently in use"), and a lack of mention here isn't inherently misleading (eg, presumably no one will use this page to conclusively determine "what locomotives have ever existed" or "is x a locomotive"). I don't see the WP:LISTN fail here. There appears to be an editor willing to update and maintain this now, as well. Though I do think this would be more helpful to readers if it had a hatnote directing to Category:Locomotives - not sure what the best wording for that would be so I leave that to someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep WP:NOTDUP and WP:DINC, but also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE though... -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As some have noted, the subject list-article has been developed somewhat, now with some coverage of preserved locomotives by country. Update: I have converted what I was drafting as a list of preserved locomotives in Colorado, into a Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States. This so far includes most locomotives which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I intend to continue developing this, and get it to mainspace; it will be a sublist linked from this main list-article. --Doncram (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list serves its purpose by bringing readers to either a locomotive page, or to a more detailed list where such a page could be found. I am aware of the category duplication issue, but it does not matter because it is not inherently problematic. As for WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the list is focussed so it is no more of a directory than other lists. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete I really do not understand why people are so desperate to keep this incoherent, indiscriminate, ill-defined mess. It's not a list of locomotives, except for the parts at the end which are (and if we start listing all preserved locomotives, we're going to need several bigger articles). and the part that is lists of locomotive classes is mixed with a list of diesel locomotive models, and I lost track of whether electric locos are treated at all. And then we have locomotive types (e.g., mallets and Shays). I can see some point to some sort of list of lists article, but this is not it, and the only reason why this isn't one of the largest articles in the system is that nobody is putting a lot of effort into expanding it according to what it says it is. Mangoe (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, expanding the list of preserved locomotives towards covering a high percentage of those worldwide will indeed require splitting out several bigger articles. This is a good place to start from, IMHO. Yes, the mixture of locomotive "classes" within individual locomotives is confusing and can/should be addressed by editing (i.e. gradually move out the classes to a separate List of locomotive classes). Yes, electric locos are locos and are to be included. It is fine to mention all of these at talk page of list-article. I am making some effort to expand coverage to include all preserved individual locomotives. I personally have done all right, IMHO, with that kind of stuff, in developing many world-wide list-articles. Such as List of fire stations, say. --Doncram (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another followup: Well the earlier sections do include links and other info regarding individual locomotives (e.g. the Great Western Railway section explicitly names 3440 City of Truro), and drilling down into some classes gets to mentions of individuals (e.g. NSB Class XXI mentions a preserved example depicted in File:Lok på Setesdalsbanen. Foto T Lunde (8632976429).jpg). But yeah "classes" and "models" may be mixed, and I myself don't yet understand the distinction, so I am not sure if it should be List of locomotive classes and models, or what, that should be split out from the "list of locomotives" if the latter is developed to cover individual locomotives only (Mangoe, perhaps you could comment on this at Talk?). --Doncram (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article being in a poor state is not a good rationale for deletion per WP:Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion is not cleanup. I agree that a full list of all locomotives will obviously be unwieldly, but that is not a valid deletion rationale either. It just means, as several others have pointed out, that this will end up as a WP:List of lists if worked on. That it hasn't been worked on much, I also find surprising, but that too is not a valid deletion rationale per WP:Wikipedia is not finished. SpinningSpark 10:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a very comprehensive list/very random selection. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe and Pi.1415926535. I doubt someone can keep this list trimmed, yet comprehensive in a long run. Categories serve a better purpose here. - Darwinek (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again no valid rationale for deletion is stated. Some readers like to navigate through categories. I and others much prefer explicit lists, which can provide some introduction, explain scope, show photos and sources, comment on comprehensiveness or lack thereof (which categories completely totally fail at), guide future development by including redlinks, etc. wp:CLNT is explicitly about how categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary, and the existence of one is not an argument for deletion of another. --Doncram (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of locomotive classes is certainly within Wikipedia's remit, as essentially every locomotive class is notable. Trying to fit every single class (or is it every single notable locomotive? still unclear what the scope is here) into a single article just isn't really possible. This article should be about either notable individual locomotives, or locomotive classes. Doing both is absurd. The article has become a confused mess because of the unclear scope. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any list is about "notable" examples (whether meaning Wikipedia-notable which could have a valid separate article, or "list-item-notable"); the word does not need to be included in the title. What's possible or not, what should be done or not, are editing concerns, not an AFD concern. Of course all classes can be part of one list, and of course all individual locomotives can be part of another list, although yes both of those will have to be split for size reasons. Not my fault the contents included classes. I think i did edit the list-article slightly to clarify the current contents include both, but that does not mean I intend for the contents to stay that way. When you drill down into some of those items, sometimes you get to lists of classes, only, sometimes you get to individual locomotives, sometimes you get a mix. Sometimes an item is the sole locomotive built, like a prototype, of planned class, so they are the same. I have taken on developing "preserved locomotives" which are individual locomotives, and I will have to drill down into each of the ambiguous items to find individual locomotives to add. I personally am more interested in individual locomotives, akin to historic sites; could you perhaps be the one to develop a list of classes? Or, this list could be pared to drop the classes without moving them to a separate new list (although I agree that would be obviously notable); this is a matter for editors at the Talk page to decide. --Doncram (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, I am finding that the categories in these areas are really poorly organized or maintained, and in the process of trying to develop Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States I am having to spend a lot of time fixing them, adding suitable categories to articles, etc. And, frankly, it would always be impractical if not impossible to check the contents of the categories and maintain/improve them, if there are not corresponding list-articles or sections. Also, it has been pointed out to me that many very short stub articles on individual locomotives have been created, in Draft space or otherwise, and I am creating rows for each one of those locomotives and redirecting the short stubs to the rows, using "id=" row anchors. It is seeming to me hugely helpful for Wikipedia to have proper list-articles developed here, instead of hopelessly unmanageable, awful, inaccurate, and incomplete categories, and zillions of bad stubs. --Doncram (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Locomotives, and retain the current formatting of only including notable topics in the list. This article would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion. Concerns about the article size ballooning can easily be addressed by the performance of page WP:SPLITS if that occurs. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the list is in a sorry state. WP:IMPERFECT. The list can certainly be improved and the list is notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 17 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 Dantmara Union. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dantmara A.B.Z Sikder High School[edit]

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

Does not fulfill WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. Non notable school. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 1 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!} 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dantmara Union, the geographic unit where the school is located, and where it is briefly mentioned. The content of the article is scraped from a government database of schools. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent reliable sources containing significant coverage of the school, so it doesn't satisfy WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:34, 12 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 Fatehpur Union (Hathazari). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatehpur Mehernega High School[edit]

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

Does not fulfill WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. Non notable school. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 1 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!} 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fatehpur Union (Hathazari), the geographic unit where the school is located, and where it is briefly mentioned. The content of the article is scraped from a government database of schools. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent reliable sources containing significant coverage of the school, so it doesn't satisfy WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:03, 13 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. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sivanath Sastri[edit]

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

We are told the subject was a Bengali social reformer, writer, translator, scholar, editor philosopher and historian, but not one single shred of evidence for any notability in any of these roles is presented here. Once the persistent coyvios were removed, this deleted, PRODed article has no merit. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and West Bengal. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article that was deleted was deleted through the copyright investigation process, not because of any lack of merit of the article, and the prod was invalid. Notability of this person has never been previously discussed. The deleted article had references, so imo a better way forward would have been to stub it and retain the references for a future editor to use. In the current article, there were also references, but these were demoted from general references to external links without any justification. Despite our complete hangup here for an inline cite for every word, general references per WP:GENREF still remain a valid method for verifiying article content.
So in short this article has been very unfairly treated. This might have a lot to do with many of the sources provided not being in English and difficult to assess. But sources in English do exist. There is a book biography, and his work is repeatedly discussed in The Brahmo Samaj and the Shaping of the Modern Indian Mind. On page 26 of that book the author says "The spiritual leader of the revolt against Keshub Sen in 1878 was Sivanath Sastri..." which imo makes him an historically important figure if that was all he ever did, but clearly, he was notable for much more than that. SpinningSpark 11:31, 3 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!} 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: A simple Google search reveals that he indeed was a notable reformer, so much so that a college Sivanath Sastri College affiliated to University of Calcutta is named after him. See this and this. I am not learnt in Bengali, but I am sure other editors will find enough WP:RS to expand this article. User4edits (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.As above, no doubt more Bengali language sources would support. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added a reference, from his entry in Banglapedia, the national encyclopedia of Bangladesh. --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:47, 13 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. Consensus for delete. Arguments for keep have provided sources, but the consensus is that these do not provide significant coverage. A review of the provided sources seems to confirm that the company is mentioned in a trivial way, if at all. TigerShark (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGWHyperloop[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Coverage presented is not indepth/independent/extensive. Half the sources are generic hype about hyperloop in India and elsewhere from the past five years, others are company generated (interviews etc). There is not one shred of notability here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote this article. Primary reasons were the fact that the company was first from Asia to be laying down the foundation of a Hyperloop as highlighted by Asia Times [5]. Also came across a number of articles mainly between 2017-18 detailing the company's proposed corridor project by notable sources including The Financial Times [6], Business Insider [7], Zee Business [8], The Hindu [9], Firstpost [10], an IOTS interview by The Tribune [11]. On revisiting the sources today, also came across a few notable, non-English, news sources such as Jagran Prakashan Limited [12][13]. Full articles on Outlooker and YourStory. Furthermore in Wissenschaftsrat's 2020 Hyperloop Report [14], NASSCOM's 2017 Startup Report [15], further features & mentions in thesis and researches.[16][17][18][19][20]. There's enough coverage by reliable sources for both WP:GNG & WP:NCORP. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth discussion of the company that gets to the level of WP:NCORP. It's all passing mentions and routine announcements. The second ref in the article, which is allegedly verifying the mere existence of the company, does not even mention it – that source is talking about the Virgin hyperloop, not about DGW. If the line is ever built (and there is no sign that anything is going to happen any time soon) then the line might be a notable transportation system deserving an article, but that does not mean that this company ever will be. SpinningSpark 15:40, 3 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!} 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spinningspark's arguments; the sources don't actually talk about DGW in-depth or even at all, and are more about hyperloops in general. In the article, source 1 has a one-paragraph description; source 8 has nothing I can see. Applying common sense I'd also note that companies on hyperloops are going to be subject to the same relentless coverage as cryptocurrencies and similar fads, so I'd expect much more coverage than this to qualify for an article. Ovinus (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specific sources can be changed or removed. However, the company finds its mentions and coverage in multiple sources including a book, papers and of news outlets (WP:NEWSORG). As for its mentions coming through what is being defined as "generic" hyperloop articles. I'd like to point out that there is no working system based on this technology today, so barring controversies, any such companies CIP Arrivo, TransPod, Hyperloop TT, pass notability only because they worked on this technology. Confirmations from publications like Asia Times [1] that this was the first company in Asia to be working on the project sets it apart from cryptocurrency projects or companies. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several news sources that have provided more than just non-trivial coverage to the company,[21][22][23] and even from a book by a reliable publisher.[24] Subject meets WP:GNG. Azuredivay (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a promotional writeup, and it lacks independent sources that establish the company's notability. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --Mestrossino (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is about a weak WP:NPOV or an attempt of WP:PROMOTION, I believe a Template:Promotional tone should be a good start. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources by Azuredivay verifies the subject is notable and meets GNG. I don't see any clear evidence of "promotional writeup". The article is a small stub it can remain like this. Editorkamran (talk) 17:37, 12 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 Immigration to Italy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beninese people in Italy[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable group; fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a database for every expat group under the sun. Curbon7 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Africa, and Italy. Curbon7 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Immigration to Italy, same rationale as with all other mass creations here. MarioGom (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would honestly agree with you on this one, MarioGom. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this is a notable group (it isn't even a cohesive group of people), and just as with all the other creations, the article is a mix of original research and guesswork. Redirecting would only make sense if the target article contained any relevant information. --bonadea contributions talk 21:18, 7 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!} 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, as with the similar articles put out by this editor. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:03, 9 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. SouthernNights (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash K. Jha[edit]

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

Previously deleted via PROD, now recreated but same issues apply - a non-notable journalist and film critic, most sources here are links to his articles. There is one book review of a book, but WP:GNG passing significant coverage there is not and his role does not, a misunderstanding of the page's creator, automatically confer notability upon him. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Film, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable film critic; one of the most famous, prolific and veteran film critics in India. Writer of a notable book (the nominator says there is one review while there are two), the foreward to which was written by no less than Amitabh Bachchan. Saying this critic is non-notable while reliable sources are provided to show the opposite, is really far-fetched. Moreover, not a single source is a link to his article but to his pages in the website of each publication. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: Please link here to the two sources (and only two) which you think give the greatest in-depth coverage of Jha. Book reviews do not establish notability of the author, they establish notability of the book. Reviews written by Jha in notable journals do not establish his notability. Passing mentions, no matter how complimentary, do not establish notability. In the absence of sources that meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO, I am at delete. SpinningSpark 17:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Indian film critic. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 4 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!} 21:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable film critic, publishing film reviews regularly in multiple leading media outlets. Author of a compendium on Indian films spanning almost 6 decades. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:14, 14 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. While the keep/delete votes are equal, the delete voters have the policy-based argument here. The nominator has challenged that this topic does not satisfy WP:GNG, and in 3 weeks still no one was able to come up with a single source that demonstrates the notability of the topic. Notability must be demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (not primary sources). Primary sources can be used for the purpose of supporting information in an article, but primary sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. If it cannot be shown that a topic is notable after an exhaustive search for sources, then it must be deleted per WP policy. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar–Mexico relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the supplied sources are primary from the Mexican government. There isn't much to these relations, no agreements, no embassies, trade is very low at USD9 million. Only 1 foreign minister visit and that was to a UN conference to Mexico. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as mentioned on numerous occasions previously, all relations are valid. You mention only one ministerial visit (from Madagascar to Mexico) but fail to mention the visits from Mexico to Madagascar. I've also added another Malagasy Ministerial visit to Mexico. The fact that most supplied sources are governmental is not an issue, as most countries local papers do not always mention diplomatic relevant news unless it's a "highly important nation" such as the United States for example. But I fail understand your motives. You never try to improve an article, but rather would simply have an article expelled from Wikipedia than add and improve it. Again, I feel like this will not the last encounter we'll have in a similar situation in the future. Aquintero82 (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability of bilateral articles. In fact 100s have been deleted. You haven't addressed how this meets WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Numerous references, makes me believe there are more to be found to help expand and grow this article.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 of the 12 sources are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a concern? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:PRIMARY, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." LibStar (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG as there are is paucity of reliable independent sources. Almost every citation is from the government of Mexico and thus non-independent. The UN source is used simply to support the statement that Madagascar attended COP 16 in Mexico, but this has nothing to do with Mex-Mad relations, and shouldn't really belong in this article. The other non-government of Mexico source (BBC) is used simply note that France introduced vanilla to Mexico, which is only glancingly related to Mex-Mad relations. Yilloslime (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With enough time, I would agree. But with that many sources and the fact that this article feels forgotten, it seems like there is a possibility that independent sources do exist out there and it's at least worth a search for them before deletion occurs. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you searched for independent sources? What is the result of your search? WP:MUSTBESOURCES LibStar (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on this subject, so I am willing to assume someone more knowledgeable about Mexican diplomacy, Madagascar diplomacy, diplomacy in general or other related subjects would likely be able to find independent sources given enough time. If they can't, then the topic can't be salvaged, but I am curious what the harm is in letting someone out there step up and try to save this and other articles like it. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us on Wikipedia tend to fall back on the notion that every country uses a "developed country" mentality on independent sources. For many countries in the world, particularly those not in Europe, Canada, United States or Australia (to name a few) primary sources, especially relating to governmental and international relations; come from government sources. It is difficult to find independent sources when relating to what many countries consider to be governmental matters.

Below is a extract regarding Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. "Primary" does not mean "bad"

The sources provided are accurate as per the information cited in the article. As I've stated in previous conversations before, diplomatic relations between nations evolve and more information will be made available. As it becomes more available, I will update the articles that I personally watch and they are relevant. Aquintero82 (talk) 20:44, 4 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!} 21:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think a consensus can be reached regarding this article at this time. If additional references can't be added in a few months, I may change my viewpoint, but I agree with Aquintero82's perspective that particular references should be judged primarily on their merit independent from other references from that source (unless that source has an established track record of being untrustworthy.) Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:35, 12 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. While there was much discussion of a merge, there isn't sufficient support to compel a merge here. Feel free to start a merge discussion on the talk page of the article, if interested in discussing that possibility further. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline Daily Amount[edit]

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

The article states that this GVA is replaced with Reference Intake in year 2014. The article was created in 2009, and no longer it is notable. It is duplicate of the Reference Intake article. So it is better to delete this article and redirect, no point having duplicate articles on the same subject. Crashed greek (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge This article could be merged into the article at Reference Intake (please see Talk:Reference Intake#Proposed merge of Guideline Daily Amount into Reference intake), with Guideline Daily Amount redirected there. ~~Reference intake itself should be moved over the (recently created) redirect Reference Intake (please see Talk:Reference Intake#Requested move 1 July 2022).~~ Reference Intake is a current system of food labelling in the EU and UK that replaced Guideline Daily Amount, on which it is based. GDA is therefore part of the history of that topic. Alternatively, the GDA article could be kept as a separate historical topic, one which has had influence in a number of countries, not only the EU and UK; and the article on Reference Intake could briefly cover GDA as part of its history. This may be sub-optimal if the topics are so closely related they are essentially the same topic. Neither is the same topic as Dietary Reference Intake in the US and Canada, to which the recently-created Reference Intake currently redirects. Sources:

Whizz40 (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for UK and EU, there is an article Dietary Reference Values regarding it. So this nominated page can be redirected to this page either. Crashed greek (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is a health guidance system, not a food labelling standard. it's not the same JeffUK (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate article for that, Nutrition facts label. Crashed greek (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Nutrition facts labels in various countries is a separate topic from the articles on the various labelling systems themselves in those countries. Whizz40 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Health and fitness, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not temporary, "Guideline Daily Amount' was a staple of British life, and printed on everything we bought from any grocery store for decades; and discussed at length in scientific papers and the mainstream press. Reference Intake currently has no reference at all to its use in the UK, At the very least we should merge them to keep the history, I don't see any pressing need to delete this. JeffUK (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Usage of guideline daily amount is so entrenched that many people use it as a common noun (see a couple of examples in the UK at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/guideline-amount). Merging the article into Reference Intake means readers who search for the term (on Google or Wikipedia) as a description of the current system of food labelling will go to the right article (Reference Intake) and readers who are searching for the historical Guideline Daily Amount will find themselves at the right article as well. I think merging is the simplest approach to providing the best encyclopedic reference for most readers interested in this topic, unless it is clear Guideline Daily Amount and Reference Intake are separate topics warranting separate articles. Whizz40 (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an American, definitely Merge per reasons above. While there is probably not so much to the topic that another article is needed, it would be incomplete for Wikipedia to not discuss it in relation to food labels. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reference Intake: both topics are notable, but similar enough that it makes more sense to discuss them on the same page. (The existing information mostly needs to be changed to the past tense, but that's the only significant issue.) --ais523 00:03, 2 July 2022 (U T C)
Keep. The nominator claims that "no longer it is notable". Notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP. I do not agree that merge to Reference Intake is the correct way forward. If it is the case, as claimed, that GDA has simply been renamed "Reference Intake" then the GDA article, as the older, more established, and more detailed article, should be kept and moved to the new title. Any merge should be the other other way round with a WP:ROUNDROBIN move to preserve the history of both. On the other hand, if they similar, but not exactly the same thing, a merge to Reference Intake is inappropriate. I could support a merge to a title that was inclusive of both systems, but that is more appropriately discussed in the merge proposal that has been launched in parallel with this AFD. SpinningSpark 17:49, 3 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!} 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "no longer notable" is not a valid reason to delete. Concur with Spinningspark above that a decision on whether to merge with Reference Intake and implementation details re: the exact direction and procedure to preserve article history should be left to the merge proposal. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary. Once notable, an article, or at least its content, remains notable. Historical names are important to retain, in order to retain the historical knowledge associated with that article title. If the content were to be merged into another article then the content would need to be retained in a separate, appropriately named sub-section. However, this is contra-indicated if the content being merged outweighed the pre-existing content in the target article. Comparing Guideline Daily Amount, a Start class article, with Reference Intake, a Stub, I think it is better to have two distinct articles about distinct, though related subjects, rather than one merged article. This avoids having a coatrack article about two different subjects, with undue weight given to the incoming content. Both articles have co-existed for about 8 years now, so I do not see a need for a merger. We are building an encyclopedia, here, not demolishing one by turning useful articles into redirects. If Reference Intake were being proposed for deletion/merging into Guideline Daily Amount, when it was newly created in 2014 then that could have been a different story, but the time to do that has passed. Live with 2 articles. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the above ivoters are correct that notability is not temporary. Lightburst (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and leave Redirect as others notability is not temporary. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 17 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 Move to British horror cinema. Consensus to keep content has now been reached. To rename has stronger backing than keep or merge. TigerShark (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British silent horror[edit]

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

Not a real, recognized cinematic sub-category, just a description. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom says not a real sub-category, but sources in the article say otherwise. Particularly The British Horror Film: from the Silent to the Multiplex and "The British Silent Horror Film and the First World War". SpinningSpark 16:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The British Horror Film: from the Silent to the Multiplex is a history of the British horror genre, so naturally it would include the silent era. Should there be an article on Multiplex British horrors or Sound British horrors? One paper is insufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article's creator stated in their first edit, "I have created this page to give a brief history of British silent horror films", so the material might be appropriate for History of horror films, but not as a standalone. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of horror films as there is not enough coverage for a standalone article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The material on "British silent horror" might be minimal, but there is a plethora of material on the more general "British horror cinema" [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. We have no article on this more general genre (although we do have an article on Hammer horrors). It seems perverse to me to get rid of an article that covers part of a clearly notable topic. It makes more sense to wait for the creation British horror cinema and then merge there. The suggested merge target is too broad and does not have a section for British horror, so imo a merge would actually be more work than creating such an article.
By the way, Brown's paper (on the First World War aspect) has something relevant to say on the lack of sources: "In part this is due to the difficulty of attributing films to the horror genre before it existed." In other words, in Brown's view, source material exists, but is not explicitly named as being horror. SpinningSpark 08:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for this to be a stand-alone article. Overspecification. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Overspecified classification not widely discussed in reliable sources. Avilich (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that this should not be a standalone article. However, one comment explicitly suggests merging, and others feel that it is overly specific, which could be addressed with a merge rather than a straight deletion. Relisting to give time for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to British horror cinema per User:Spinningspark's Comment and reframe to all British horror cinema and a sub-section about silent. If/when the silent section gets long enough it can split off to a separate article. -- GreenC 17:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced (including mention of the topic) and encyclopedic. I literally have no idea why this was nommed. Have made a few obvious edits including a year fix, and agree with Spinningspark's analysis of the topic's notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of horror films. Significant coverage exists, however the source article would benefit from the context and the target article would benefit from preventing WP:FORK. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge, delete would also be fine. It's not terribly written, but unfortunately I think it's an overspecification. From what I can see, only one ref specifically mention "The British Silent Horror Film" as a subcategory, and other probably don't mention this extensively as an exclusive category, so I don't think it meets GNG, though it's borderline. But I also (very weakly) oppose straight deletion, as the article has good, well-cited elements, so I think merging to History of horror films (and possibly creating an article British horror cinema perhaps) would probably be the best. VickKiang (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to British horror cinema in the manner that GreenC suggests. Spinning Spark has demonstrated the notability of the subject. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Well enough sourced already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, to British horror cinema. SpinningSpark has shown that British horror cinema is notable, but it seems that British silent horror specifically is not particularly, with only one notable production discussed in the article (The Beetle). SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:10, 15 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 Wii system software#List of additional Channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of streaming services for the Nintendo Wii[edit]

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

duplicate of items contained at Wii system software without adding any encyclopedic benefit. Slywriter (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wii system software#List of additional Channels. The merge target contains all the information on this page, but this page is better referenced – we should be moving the references over rather than deleting them. --ais523
Merge and redirect to Wii system software#List of additional Channels. I'm agreeing with ais523 on this one, there's no reason to keep this here when this page contains all the needed information. However, there are better sources on this article, so use those. RteeeeKed 💬📖 20:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per ais523. -Vipz (talk) 20:21, 12 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!} 23:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Investment One[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation, article has multiple problems and seems to be maintained solely by someone within the organisation itself as an advertisement. JeffUK (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a promotional writeup, and it lacks independent sources that establish the company's notability.TH1980 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a complete advertisement with a small amount of sources.--Mestrossino (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, not encyclopaedic in nature. Elbatli (talk) 22:51, 11 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!} 23:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Syria international footballers born outside Syria[edit]

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

As with List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain (AfD), I fail to see how this list meets our inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of coverage on these individuals as a group or set and also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list, no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA, just like the Bahrain one. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 9 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!} 22:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lifelike experience[edit]

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

This is essentially an extended essay trying to explain that there are things in the world (with an arbitrary list of artwork, films, video games) that seem to provide lifelike experiences based on some vague conception. Terribly undersourced and arbitrary article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the current article looks like it's an editor's personal essay. If this were a summary of essays written by secondary sources, linking artistic realism, trompe l'oeil, through to modern-day simulators and virtual reality, it might well be possible to write an article. But it must start with the sources and write the summary, not start with a personal opinion and go hunting for sources. Therefore delete, with the option for someone to start again if they wish to do the job properly. Elemimele (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete as BS personal essay about something deeply subjective. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 07:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 07:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is WP:OR about a common phrase. Wikipedia is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacona (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTESSAY. ––FormalDude talk 01:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORUM and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the venue for essays (not in the mainspace, at least). A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:15, 13 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. Star Mississippi 03:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Kealoha[edit]

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

No sources describe this person in detail. There are a few criminal acts, but this seems like WP:BIO1E. Daask (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. Daask (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough to overcome major BLP concerns. I think we may have the same issue with the article on his wife as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly known for one event or just for being a criminal. He was chief of a police department with 2,700 employees. And easily enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. It's highly unusual for the chief of such a large police organisation to be convicted of and imprisoned for a crime. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 1 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)} 18:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the events of his life make him notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:30, 15 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Local 58[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. (Prod was endorsed by creator, but removed by another editor) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources including full articles in Bloody Disgusting, The Outline, and Dread Central. Note that Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central are Wikipedia reliable sources for horror topics. There is enough coverage for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per above; given Local58’s influence on the analog horror sub genre, it would be pretty silly to axe our article on it.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 10:36, 13 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marsupilami (band)[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidence of notability as early British prog rock band, including this, this, this, this, etc. Extensive home page here. Two albums on Transatlantic Records. Discogs. YouTube. Our article needs improvement, but has existed since 2008. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Times, Metro (linked in above post) and two staff written album reviews at AllMusic here, and here so passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 and 5, so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 10 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!} 22:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Group and Chapman[edit]

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

Non-notable local TV show; poorly written; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG ~~and WP:NTV~~ (didn't realise this one is an essay): this local TV show doesn't look like it left any traces whatsoever on the Internet, apart from this article... BilletsMauves (talk) 19:52, 14 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 The Right Stuff (blog). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Justice Party (United States)[edit]

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

Failed PROD, but I believe this is worth discussing. Yes, SPLC, ADL, and other advocacy groups cover this in-depth and are reliable sources, but at the end of the day these advocacy groups are likely to go more in-depth on groups like these than would be appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I propose a merge to The Right Stuff (blog). QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Curbon7 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has sources other than ADL and SPLC, and I recently somewhat improved the article, and with additional sources. I propose keep but am amenable to listening to proposals. RKT7789 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Right Stuff (blog), and merge any pertinent content there, per nom. Sal2100 (talk) 17:11, 8 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 14:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharanya Ari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sharanya Ari

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

The person does not meet WP:NOTABLE, all news items(not commenting on reliability/notability) are for a single event. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan (2nd nomination). User4edits (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. MurielMary (talk) 23:44, 9 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. Consensus to delete. No sources providing significant coverage put forward and no other arguments put forward, except to claim that he is notable or that he has interviewed notable people. Neither of those arguments establish any consensus for notability. TigerShark (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rahman Osman[edit]

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

non-notable coverage, mostly a freelancer and no coverage of Osman himself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The Rahman is notable when it comes to sports engagements in the Ghanaian space and more, keeping this would be good.Jwale2 (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what sources? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: --Masssly (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Owula kpakpo (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Ruby D-Brown (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To make this easier on the closer and anyone looking, please see this source assessment table. None of the keep votes (which appear to be SPAs anyway) hold any water.

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2021/news/ghanaian-football-journalist-joins-regional-publisher/	~ It wasn't written by the subject but it's basically a press release		✘ No
https://ghanasoccernet.com/top-ghanaian-sports-journalist-rahman-osman-joins-jpimedia-in-the-uk-as-specialist-football-writer	~ Not written by subject but it's a basic announcement akin to a press release		✘ No
https://www.whufc.com/news/articles/2016/november/15-november/we-all-follow-west-ham	opinion piece	not even largely about the subject	✘ No
https://muckrack.com/rahman-osman	basically a journalists version of linkedin		✘ No
https://www.independent.co.uk/author/rahman-osman	just his author profile		✘ No
https://www.nationalworld.com/author/rahman-osman	another author profile		✘ 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}}.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Dnshitobu (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The naked keep votes from SPAs are not convincing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whole bunch of not much based on the sources explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he is notable enough since he has granted interview to notable soccer professionals daSupremo 22:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviewing someone notable does not make them notable. Notability is neither inherited nor contagious. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:25, 13 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 G11 Speedy.. Deleted by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satyam maurya[edit]

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

an unsourced and promotional stub, been up for years without sources. There are links to his website and youtube channel Khgk (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Khgk (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT. The editor wrote about himself. All notability criteria fail here. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G11+G3 This hasn't been up for years. User:Satyam maurya moved their userpage into mainspace just today (pure vandalism imo). It should've been reverted instead being brought up here to waste community's time. This deserves no discussion. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:G11 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 8 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 14:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MobileStore[edit]

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

after cleaning up the unsourced PR spam, we're not left with much and a before reveals even less. This seems to be a run of the mill company with no in depth coverage, only your standard PR announcements. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional in nature. No significant coverage. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 12 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 under criterion CSD G5 (deleted by Bbb23). —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yazidi nationalism[edit]

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

1) created by sock known for POV, 2) A lot of it is OR and not about nationalism. For example: "The British mandate in Iraq identified the Yazidis as a small nation" - what does this have to do with Yazidi nationalism? 3) "yazidi nationalism"/"yezidi nationalism" gives few results on Google

This afd nomination will most likely attract the sockmaster through the use of VPN. Semsûrî (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Semsûrî (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criterion CSD G5, created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Failing that, delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 8 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Water For People[edit]

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

All the sources are the charity's website with one or two other weak primary sources thrown in. I did a Google search to see if I could rescue the page but nada. Therefore I have no choice but to nominate this article for deletion because it fails WP:ORG. I take no pleasure in this. GDX420 (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a bit of coverage on Newspapers.com. Even if a lot of it is just "passing mentions", it returns such a large volume of hits that it will take quite a long time to read and sort through. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's tackle this puzzle the piecemeal way. If we end up not keeping this as a standalone article, it's at least worthy of a "Merge" with the article on the American Water Works Association, because there is such a large body of in-depth articles about Water for People (WFP) in JSTOR. The problem with many of the articles, though, is that they appear in the journal Journal and the journal Water Resources IMPACT which are published by the American Water Works Association itself, and therefore aren't independent. I'll be circling back periodically with an update on all the coverage found. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JOURNAL ARTICLES – mostly non-independent

Journal (AWWA) articles re: WFP: 2008 in Guatemala; 15th anniversary in 2006; "Decade of Accomplishment' in 2001; 2016 article by CEO of WFP; 2012 CEO interview; 1991 Executive Director's "Reflections". (All in-depth but non-independent; there are many more articles available in JSTOR like this.)
Water Resources IMPACT articles re: WFP: 2010 article by volunteer in Honduras]; 2011 article by volunteer in Rwanda; 2001 newcomers' guide to the major players. (Again, the publication itself is not independent.)
Water Environment & Technology article (2000) (short article with general information plus quote from WFP community relations manager)

BOOKS – excluding any books authored by WFP/W4P representatives

1) Mascarenhas, Michael (2014). "Crisis, Humanitarianism, and the Condition of Twenty-First-Century Sovereignty" in Kahn, Hilary (ed.), Framing the Global: Entry Points for Research. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. pp. 305–312. (Description and critical analysis of Water for People's policies and practices as an NGO, written by environmental sociologist currently at UC Berkeley)

2) Sarni, William (2011). Corporate Water Strategies. Washington, D.C.: Earthscan. pp. 93–94. (Two sizable paragraphs dedicated to Water for People, including the author's own assessment of the organization's structure and effectiveness relative to other similar non-profit organizations; author is a water strategy consultant; quick scan of book introduction reveals no apparent conflict of interest)

3) Vitasek, Kate (2012). Vested: How P&G, McDonald's, and Microsoft are redefining winning in business relationships. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 154–165. (11 pages dedicated to WFP as a management case study; incorporates direct quotes from WFP but also the business school professor's own observations and analysis)

4) Newton, David E. (2016). The Global Water Crisis: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. pp. 217–219. (Profile, but could be considered a tertiary source if we take the title "a reference handbook" literally)

5) Weber, Karl (2012). Last Call at the Oasis: The global water crisis and where we go from here. New York: Public Affairs. p. 218. (Only a short paragraph appearing a couple entries before Matt Damon's Water.org)

Keep on the basis of significant coverage in books 1 and 2 above, as uncontroversial independent, reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:NONPROFIT. According to UC Berkeley environmental sociologist Michael Mascarenhas, Water for People is "a major player in the water aid world" operating in 10 countries internationally (p. 305), and we should keep this page on Wikipedia, add the sources, and continue to improve it. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's book 1 (or at least a download link for that chapter). HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certainly sufficient sources to meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 9 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 00:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Bacqué[edit]

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

Although they are reliable, not a single one of the references actually discusses Bacqué in any prose. They're all just references that verify his credits. Without actual content about Bacqué, they don't meet WP:SIGCOV. I didn't locate any SIGCOV sources on a search, either - just single line "he produced this" credits in articles about other peoples' albums. Without SIGCOV, he doesn't meet WP:GNG, so this article should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are sources out there, we're very much in interview or passing mention territory which is, as we know, insufficient to sate the appetite of the fell Gods of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's a longtime studio pro with an extensive resume, but the nature of his job means that he is usually only listed in credits for other people's works and he gets an occasional interview in occupational publications. He apparently won a "Global Music Award" but that ceremony never seems to get much coverage either. Props to him for his successful career behind the scenes, but he does not have enough significant and reliable coverage in his own right to justify an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:12, 8 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 05:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murali Kumar[edit]

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

We recently deleted Priya Anand, and this is more or less the same kind of thing. Dubbing artist with no notable awards (first link to "evidence" of notable award goes to another Wikipedia article while the next two are to youtube videos which do not qualify as independent), does not qualify as notable per any SSG, refs consist of evidence he did the things listed in the article rather than in-depth discussion of the subject per se, does not appear to meet the requirements of our WP:BLP policy. A loose necktie (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 8 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tor A. Benjaminsen[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to qualify for an article per WP:ACADEMIC, a search for sources produces several of his publications but no in depth discussion of the subject per se. Does not appear to meet our WP:BLP policy requirements. A loose necktie (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Google Scholar lists over 7000 citations to his work, with an h-index of 42 and many papers with three-figure citation counts. I don't know how normal these figures are for this field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation numbers mentioned by Phil above are high enough for a WP:NPROF crit. 1 pass under most circumstances, and I don't see any indications that human geography is the sort of very high-citation field where they would be inadequate. There's also the possibility of notability via other criteria (for instance, he seems to have coäuthored several well-reviewed books, so WP:NAUTHOR is a consideration). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Keep, in addition to his excellent citation rate, I suspect his professorship is of equivalent status in Norway to a named professorship in the US. Elemimele (talk) 20:13, 8 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. ✗plicit 11:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Park The Streaming Wars Part 2[edit]

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

Non-notable future film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NFF and WP:GNG, move to draft until it receives appropriate coverage BOVINEBOY2008 10:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even though this is considered a television episode and is not a feature film, this still fits multiple parameters of both WP:NFF and WP:NTVEP, multiple sources are already included in the article and more will come once the reviews are published in less than one week. Article appears to have been submitted for AfD due to submitter's attempt to draftspace the article without any discussion on talk page. South Park episode articles are frequently produced in the same matter as this article. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, this isn't actually a movie, just a double episode (thanks, 2000s Nickelodeon 'movies' 😒!) on a streaming platform rather than its regular network, but we know it's going to happen, and it meets the common adult animation show template. It'll definitely meet the GNG by next week. Nate • (chatter) 23:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. It's going to get a lot of coverage. SpinningSpark 12:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep as it is now out, the series has a long notability precedent, plus the reasons stated above. -- sarysa (talk) 13:44, 13 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 Small Teen, Bigger World. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Burkitt[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, not to mention article is redundant since the subject is already covered in Small Teen, Bigger World. The creator has had several articles rejected due to non-neutral tone and lack of reputable sourcing. The proposed deletion was repeatedly removed by single-purpose accounts with edit histories consisting of only this article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sad story with a sad end, but does not meet WP:GNG. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Small Teen, Bigger World, as she does not appears to have an independent notability outside the show, and the article about the show already provides more biographical informations about her than this entry. Her name is clearly a likely search term, and there is no reason to delete it/remove it altogether. Cavarrone 11:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and~~ redirect, to the extent of including the info about Jazz's book which is the one point in this article not covered by the article on the TV show. Be sure to include redirects from all versions of her name, too, just as if it was a bio: Jasmine Burkitt (which ought to have Category:People with dwarfism, and the birth and death year cats), but also Jasmine Emily Wakefield-Burkitt, Jasmine Emily Burkitt, Jazz Burkitt, Jasmine Wakefield-Burkitt, Jazz Wakefield-Burkitt. PamD 14:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WP:SOFIXIT: I've added the book to the TV show article, and made all those redirects to the Jasmine Burkitt article. ~~When~~ If/when it becomes a redirect to the TV show article, the double redirects will automatically get converted to point to the TV show article. Redirects are good. (And I have a lousy cold - yes, several negative LFTs - so am spending a lot of time immobile at the computer today as moving around makes it worse.) PamD 14:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC) corrected PamD 18:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because, sometimes, it is appropriate to break from protocol, and I believe this to be one such occasion. We may be contributors to an encyclopaedia, but we are human beings first and foremost, and I believe we should value compassion and respect above - far, far above - the rules and regulations we impose on ourselves, always. Montgomery15 (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does this even mean? Hardly a viable rationale for keeping the article, and as previously mentioned, Wikipedia is not a memorial. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is pretty clear; I respect your opinion, but stand by my own. Montgomery15 (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While we do value compassion and all that stuff, she's not notable here. This isn't a feel-good exercise, NPOV applies. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I caught this in New Page Patrol. I realize that many Wikipedians have disdain for reality TV "stars" — people who are bit-players in ensemble casts of series. This, however, was a star of a show called Small Teen, Bigger World and an individual whose premature death was covered massively by the press. This strikes me as a classic case of WP:GNG versus IDON'TLIKEIT — and in that case mark me down for the principle of GNG every time. Carrite (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Small Teen, Bigger World. It's the show that made her notable, and there is more useful information there than on this page, so a redirect seems perfectly reasonable. I don't see the "I don't like it" argument - the show is a documentary about her, so having a single article seems more appropriate unless there is so much content that splitting them seems necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in support of a redirect if deletion proves not to be a viable option. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:43, 13 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 consensus seems to support Keeping this article on the project although there is room for improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Acts of the Jatiya Sangsad[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. No context whatsoever. Lurking shadow (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Bangladesh. Lurking shadow (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and LISTN. The Jatiya Sangsad is the national Parliament of Bangladesh. Every book on the law of Bangladesh contains extensive coverage of these Acts. James500 (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address WP:NOTDIR. Lurking shadow (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:NOTDIR does it say or imply that lists of acts of parliament in any country, let alone the world's eighth most populous one, are not allowed? All that was needed to provide context was to add a few words to this article, as James500 has done. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you still want to keep this list if I'd merge it to Jatiya Sangsad? It contains many entries without any regard to their notability, without any information on the individual entries beyond the passing date. This list is still a directory, not an encyclopedic article.Lurking shadow (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the policy says that entries in disambiguation pages need to be notable. But this list is not a disambiguation page. I have not yet seen any Acts on this list that lack "encyclopedic merit" (to use the actual wording of criteria 1). Lurking shadow has not named any individual Acts. In any event, many of the Acts do individually satisfy GNG. [For the avoidance of doubt, none of the entries contain the "passing date": All of the entries contain information other than the "passing date".] There is an enormous amount of additional information that could be added to the entries. There is nothing 'wrong' with this list that cannot be fixed through normal editing without deleting it altogether. James500 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says showing encyclopedic merit. It doesn't matter if its there, if it isn't shown, it is a directory. Blow this up and start with a good list in the first place. Not this. Lurking shadow (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this, some lists have only bluelinked entries, there's not much you need to say there. You just link the articles, this is a navigational list. Some lists art for entries that do not merit an individual article because of insufficient(but existing) coverage, these entries should be directly sourced and with the info coming from that insufficient coverage. Lists also tend to stay in the shape they are in after there are many entries(because changing the shape is lots of work). This list is in a terrible shape, only contains a very small number of article links, and there are two sources, one not independent, and one that is an index. And no inline citations. And it has a big number of entries. All of this at once means that this list likely has a terrible future before it, and will not get much better.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. context has been provided and is a notable topic.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All of the acts made by National Parliament of Bangladesh are Notable. So why List is not Notable?–MinisterOfReligion ^(Talk) 13:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statements like these carry little, if any, weight. You assert something(that all of these acts are notable) without backing it up, and you miss the reason for the discussion in the first place, that it is not notability which is in question but rather suitability along WP:NOT.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: National laws are notable. Just because an article has not been created does not necessarily mean they are not notable it could also mean no one has gotten around to creating it. There are numerous notable topics related to Bangladesh that have not been created due to the fact that only a small number of active editors write about topics related to Bangladesh. This is not an indiscriminate list but a listing of notable and rational listings. The encyclopedia is better off for having this article and it is in fact encyclopedic.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of national legislation of a country is indubitably notable; it's inevitable that there will be a need to FORK information in supplementary articles as List of United States federal legislation or List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom show. This article should probably broken down by parliamentary session, but that's not an issue for the AfD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 10 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 11:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jochen Schneider (football executive)[edit]

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

Non-notable football executive. Fails GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 8 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 12:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Heritage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as failing WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:GNG because the article relied on primary sources, his written work published by the newspapers he writes for and there was no significant coverage of him or reviews of this books. Funnily enough, those are precisely the issues that persist in the re-created page, tagged as such and indeed now AfD'd for a second time as such. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete failure of WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. Most of the references are to works by the author himself, not a shred of independent coverage. And this is cause for concern also. SpinningSpark 18:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to indicate notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:54, 8 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. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Policy Studies (Sri Lanka)[edit]

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

Most refs are unnatural links, passing mentions, no SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG ,NCORP. Moreover, the page was deleted under G11, G12 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=National_Chamber_of_Exporters_of_Sri_Lanka) but the user recreated it. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 8 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. Original rationale for nomination wasn't valid, and all !votes are to keep. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artemsil[edit]

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

Created by a blocked user according to user @MER-C: . Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the largest enterprises in the world for salt production. --Yakudza (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the biggest in Europe salt mining and production company, though it needs rewriting. --IgorTurzh (talk) 15:46, 12 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:SNOW and G5. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bam Bam Bholey[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Fails WP:NSONG. --Bears (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Bears (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources seem to be mainly self-published music streaming sites.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not passing WP:NSONG. Not having much independent sources to create a standalone article.Jimandjam (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are links to streaming sites, IMDB and other poor quality sources that do nothing to show this meets WP:NSONG. Strong scent of WP:UPE or WP:COI editing from the creators history. Ravensfire (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunny Prajapatii. I totally forgot there's a history of promotion around Sunny Prajapati and related works. Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of meeting musical notability. There is also a draft, possibly created so that the article could not be draftified. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 9 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!} 05:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4KDownload[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/4KDownload (2nd nomination)

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

This just looks like spam for a completely non-notable software product, created with the purpose of making it look legitimate/whatever and increasing its search rankings. There is absolutely nothing unique or notable, and actually it's probably just a payware wrapper for youtube-dl or similar open-source project. There are hundreds of commercial shareware wrappers for ffmpeg/whatever and none of them are notable or encyclopedic enough. HomemadePotato (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with all the points made above. It looks to me like a legitimization attempt. Zombles - Talk to me 14:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons given in the nomination. The non-primary references it uses are purely promotional and from small sites. -Vipz (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this text of unabashedly promotional nature. But, mainly, and even so, essentially unsourced. And I counted five SPA curators and more quasi SPAs. Doesn't augur well, this. -The Gnome (talk) 19:52, 14 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PharmEasy[edit]

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

As per WP:NCORP there should be multiple independent sources of deep coverage with in-depth information on the company. I was not able to find any such references. Alphaonekannan (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage in independent sources. Likely to be a listed entity [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: As per above, and it seems that company is one of the largest player in Online Pharmacy in India[41] and perhaps has gone public too, therefore, a case for strong keep emerges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User4edits (talk • contribs)
Comment: WP:LISTED listed states that Consensus has been that notability is not automatic for listed companies. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. I was not able to find any evidence to prove that this is a listed company. Company is one of the largest player in Online Pharmacy in India. How does this make it notable. You are arguing that notability is inherited. Companies must meet WP:SIRS to establish notability as notability is not independent. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverages were provided by Redtigerxyz, and article was nominated for deletion by a banned user. Elbatli (talk) 22:54, 11 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!} 05:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamoy Phillips[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:29, 8 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!} 05:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neesah Godet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:29, 8 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!} 05:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irlanda Lopes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:29, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavans Vidya Mandir, Elamakkara[edit]

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

NO significant coverage and fails GNG. ChristinaNY (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChristinaNY (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Kerala. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Fails GNG. --Bears (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 17:21, 9 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!} 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamini Abeysekera[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, apart from his obituary all the other references are merely mentions in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Dan arndt (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Subject has plenty of publications, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage about the subject himself. Could not corroborate "advisor to the Prime Minister of Thailand" with any mention in Thai sources, using multiple spellings in Thai. That said, the bulk of his work was pre-internet, so this is not conclusive. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another "advisor." Just another poorly sourced text. Just another promotional brochure. Just another article created by someone banned from Wikipedia for engaging in spam. Ho hum. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Rajendra Singh[edit]

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

Ruler of Baghal State from 1946 to 1948 (when the state acceded to the India). The only source available has issues: It says that he was elected to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Suni/Sunni constituency for 8 years. but the Assembly only lasted from 1952 to 1956, when the assembly was dissolved. Another point is that this ECI source says that another person, viz. Sita Ram, won from the Suni constituency in 1952. The subject has a very common Indian name, which leads to a lot of search results which are not related to him. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Himachal Pradesh, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur that it is dubious whether or not he was elected to the assembly; another point of contention I found is that the article says he ruled until 1971, but the article for Baghal State says he ruled until 1947. Regardless, as the leader of a Princely state, he passes WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1971/1948 point is explained by Privy Purse in India#Abolition. After 1948, the state merged with India, but the ruler was allowed to keep his title. After 1971, this too was abolished. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

It seems a bit ambiguous whether rulers can be counted as politicians, and hence pass NPOL, but if there is previous consensus on this, then maybe NPOL can be tweaked a bit to make it clearer. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean he was a head-of-state, so I would presume that qualifies under NPOL#1 as being a national office. Curbon7 (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there should probably be clarification. I was able to find WP:Articles for deletion/Khande Rao Holkar where (if you ignore the socking) Necrothesp also makes the argument that a ruler = NPOL. On the other hand, I also saw your previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Muhammad Khan of Malerkotla, which had similar rulers of Princely states end in redirect. However, both AfDs had minimal participation. Might need an RfC. Curbon7 (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems clear that heads of state are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 11 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. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Boyun[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Korea. Ploni (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ploni has nominated 18 authors for deletion since Wednesday, all with very brief rationales like this one. The article says that she's won multiple literary awards, and the nominator has made no effort to explain why we should discount those. pburka (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. As it stands, all of the article's references are to her publisher's website ([42], [43], [44]) or the online bookstore YES24 ([45]), which sells her books. The Munhakdongne Writer Award is given out by her publisher, while I've been unable to find significant coverage of The Jaeum & Moeum Literature Prize (자음과모음 청소년문학상, which appears to be for works by youth). –Ploni (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, Ploni, it would be ideal if you could offer a similar analysis for each AFD nomination rather than just stating that the bio doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or "Appears to fail WP:GNG." Editors who respond to AFD nominations have to put in work to look at the existing sources and maybe search for new sources so the nominator should as well. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does appear to fail both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. While winning certain awards was a criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (artists) (failed proposal), that is a failed proposal which did not gain consensus and is not recognized on Wikipedia as a consideration for notability and WP:AUTHOR does not list awards as an indicator of notability. However even within the context of that failed proposal, neither the Munhakdongne Writer Award nor the Jaeum & Moeum Literature Prize appear to be notable awards in any respect. I was able to find a few scant mentions of the author An Boyun online but they were all Wordpress blog interviews and other unreliable sources. I will say, however, that it is difficult to find information under the name An Boyun, in part because searches online keep turning up Turkish phrases such as "Tanrı'ya her an boyun eğin" which translates to "Submit to God at all times" as well as countless other Turkish sentences which happen to contain "...an boyun..." as part of the sentence, even when adding words such as "author" to the search query. I went pretty far into the search results but I will concede that it is possible that there are search results being buried under the weight of unrelated Turkish phrases that I just wasn't able to find. There is also the fact that An Boyun is a South Korean author who writes in Korean, a language which I do not speak. That means I'm potentially ignorant of an entire language's worth of potential sources that I just can't read. With that in mind I am saying that I do not consider the article notable with the information I have on hand. If someone is able to find additional sources or information, please share it here and ping me and I will gladly reassess what I have said. But with what I know and was able to find, the article just doesn't meet the standards or either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. - Aoidh (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject's failing the notability criterion, as shown in Aoidh's exemplary forensics. It's a purely promotional text filled with fluff, such as "her works are filled with such violence". For some reason, the creator of the page posted up in 2017 an avalanche of poorly sourced texts about South Korean poets. But first things first. -The Gnome (talk) 18:33, 14 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. This is a combined non-admin close by myself and the nominator, who missed a few steps.(non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Singles 1999–2006[edit]

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because The Singles 1999–2006 is not a very notable release: It has not appeared on any country's national music chart, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country and it has not won or been nominated for a major music award. Additionally, if you look Coldplay discography, you will notice details about this boxset can already be found there. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:NALBUM, the album does not have to satisfy all the requirements such as charting and certifications. If it received reviews and other reliable media coverage, that can suffice. This album received a profile in NME (currently footnote #3). The article relies on a couple of old hard copy reviews that I cannot verify (and Q Magazine is out of business), but if anyone can verify those, then this article might be eligible for keeping. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NME review is https://www.nme.com/reviews/reviews-coldplay-8352-333269; it looks like Q magazine didn't publish its reviews online but https://web.archive.org/web/20070429213329/http://www.q4music.com/nav?page=q4music.about.currentissue mentions that there was a review. Peter James (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (I already commented above.) The nominator is working to clean up a lot of obscure quickie Coldplay items, and that is okay but this one was a legitimate wide-market release that attracted some pro reviews. Thanks to Peter James above for tracking down some evidence. I think this article needs to be cleaned up and expanded with prose from the pro reviewers, but it qualifies as a viable stub. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep this article (which I'm obviously not very keen on), I would like to remove it from the chronology or at least making a separate one for the studio albums, all of these side-relases, which as you noted, are "obscure quickie items" make the current chronology harder to navigate. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's valid, and cleaning up the chronology is something you could do as a general editing effort, regardless of whether any of the articles in question are kept or deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just cleaned up the chronology today. I would like to withdrawn my nomination, is it possible? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have announced that you're withdrawing the nomination, anybody could wrap this up with a non-admin close. I probably shouldn't because I'm an involved voter. If that doesn't happen or if anyone else wants to vote/comment, an Admin will make it official on around July 15 or so. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 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 Tripuri dances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Owa dance[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable, single sentence stub which has not been edited in any meaningful way since 2013. A cursory search indicates only passing mentions to the dance in associations with other dances. I am reworking the page Tripuri dances and will give it a mention there, but it does not warrant its own article at the present time. Fritzmann (message me) 01:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Fritzmann (message me) 01:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. I would have said merge, but there is nothing in the article to merge. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short mentions (1, 2), but doesn't meet GNG as they aren't significant. The stub also lacks any refs. VickKiang (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Doesn't seem to be much information available about it to justify a separate article, a redirect and merge into Tripuri dances seems appropriate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tripuri dances. I tried to find some information about the dance, but all that came up is that it is a traditional dance of the Mog people, presumably performed during the Owa festival. maybe there is an offline source somewhere that discusses the dance in detail... Aymatth2 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clare's Senior Secondary School, Agra[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. There's hope for this type of avalanche, still. -The Gnome (talk) 18:26, 14 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!} 02:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transrational[edit]

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

Prodded twice, both times because it is wholly redundant to Precognition. As it stands, it is largely a WP:DICDEF. 3 of the 6 references are by the inventor of the term, Ref. 5 is likely WP:PROFRINGE and may fail WP:SYNTH, and Ref. 6 is another Wikipedia article (Zaum) that uses the term, but almost certainly in a different meaning than this article. Not sure about Ref. 3, which is a book about dreams by Vine Deloria Jr., but I suspect that it is also profringe because he also wrote Red Earth, White Lies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think they are saying it's the same as 'Precognition' so shouldn't be redirected; but It's a non-notable term invented by a non-notable person. and with sentences like "phenomena occurring within the natural universe where information and experiences does not readily fit into the typical cause and effect structure" is basically WP:Nonsense JeffUK (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of many woolly terms invented in a woolly area of thinking, with nothing about it that stands out. It's a simple enough coinage that it has probably been independently "invented" multiple times beyond the two given. XOR'easter (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transpersonal_psychology. This is probably what the neologism is related to. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an overly specific target for a fairly non-specific term. I lean toward delete. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 22:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable vague neologism with no extensive use among those who incline to this kind of thinking. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Albaqer Abdulrahman[edit]

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

Fails to WP:NSPORT, He hasn't played any first-level matches, nor does he play in a fully professional league. فيصل (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. فيصل (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT, as he did not played at professional leagues.Alimovvarsu (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and not just WP:NSPORT. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of indiscriminately listed information. -The Gnome (talk) 17:50, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of B105 personalities[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Has only 1 source and numerous non notable entries. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't to be used the same way https://www.hit.com.au/shows is. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Radio, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Nate. This is basically trivia. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Doctorhawkes: Listcruft is not a reason for deletion, it is someone's essay. Deus et lex (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per core content policies on lists, an integral part of the guideline on stand-alone lists. Fluff is fluff by any other name. This is pure, unadulterated individual work. -The Gnome (talk) 17:57, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Yugoslavia[edit]

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

This article has no inline references, it has now been tagged with five major issues, and will continue to act as a magnet for controversial and biased polemics such as the ones at the end, unless we invoke WP:TNT or adequately source everything that is to remain herein. Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, non-neutral article, written from a perspective of one single book as a source, with absolutely no inline citations. Fbifriday (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that this article needs a lot of work, but deletion is not cleanup WP:DINC and therefore for a notable topic (see WP:GNG, we should make the effort to improve it. We should consider also that we have comparable articles for most countries. And Wikipedia has mechanisms for removing specific problematic content. Evidence of notability of the topic:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb010386/full/html?skipTracking=true
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12347863/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080231259500131
https://www.citsee.eu/citsee-story/becoming-citizens-politics-women%E2%80%99s-emancipation-socialist-yugoslavia CT55555 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we should not consider that we have other comparable articles for most countries. The article as written is biased, written from one POV, and would require a complete overhaul to balance it and add new content and sources. WP:TNT it and start over. Fbifriday (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about WP:WHATABOUT - although that is an essay, an opinion, I respect it. But to say the essay is biased, is to assume bad faith. Please also consider that it might be not biased, and perhaps just at odds with your perspective on the subject. It includes quotes and perspectives from various scholars, and I've added in citations for most of them between your comment and this one, so it does include various points of view. I think the article has been over tagged. It does need some work. WP:TNT is another essay, one that I reject. It's easy to make bold improvements on wikipedia, I don't accept that it's necessary to delete things to improve them. If it needs a complete overhaul, I encourage others to also edit the article and overhaul it. Again, deletion is not cleanup. You should really be trying to argue that it's not a notable topic if you wanted to delete this, once I said it's a notable topic, that warrants a reply. Pointing out weaknesses is confirming that you think deletion is clean up. CT55555 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/notification: I'm going to try and get some help improving the article: Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration CT55555 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs a lot work. I easily found things like this news article [46] from 31 Oct 1975, titled International professional woman describes women's roles in Yugoslavia. The United Nations website has articles to search through as well. Digging through everything and rewriting the article will take significant work. Dream Focus 18:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, including due to the non-encyclopedic style and significant verifiability issues. WP:GNG also does not seem clearly supported at this time. There are sources about aspects of the topic, including via JSTOR, e.g. Women in the Yugoslav National Liberation Movement: An Overview, Women, Conflict, and Culture in Former Yugoslavia, and Becoming citizens: the politics of women’s emancipation in socialist Yugoslavia (University of Edinburgh), as well as Springer, e.g. The Woman Question and the First Wave of Feminism in Yugoslavia, The Strange Case of Yugoslav Feminism: Feminism and Socialism in “the East” and Cambridge: Women and Yugoslav Partisans. There is also Feminism and Yu: Feminist Magazines in Yugoslavia (Ms. Magazine), Serbs 'enslaved Muslim women at rape camps' (The Guardian), Feminism and violence against women in Yugoslavia during state socialism (T&F), Assault on the Soul: Women in the Former Yugoslavia (T&F), Women in Black Against the War in Yugoslavia. Sources could be used to improve the Yugoslavia article, until a WP:SPINOFF is supported. Beccaynr (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clearly established by sources cited here and a cursory look on Google Scholar. The question remains whether the article is beyond repair, and whether a WP:TNT would be beneficial. I'm not seeing that here, I think the article has improved from hopeless to bad since the nomination. There are four decent sources. I don't see clear mistakes in the parts that are not yet cited. I'm more inclined to support TNT deletion when it has become really difficult to move foreward on an article, for instance because its made up entirely of unreliable sources / text-source discrepancies. I don't see that here. Femke (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a clear mistake in uncited parts of the article when there are descriptions of women as a monolith, e.g. "They hoped to become more economically independent", "They resisted the unjust wars". Also, in the WP:QUOTEFARM section of the article, the inclusion of "Romanian women are prostituting themselves for a single dollar in towns on the Romanian-Yugoslav border" seems problematic, and it is introduced as "The results of reactionary, right-wing measures adopted by the new nationalist states are vividly described by Drakulić." If there is WP:GNG support for the broad general topic instead of various aspects, I think research should be conducted first, then the article written, instead of an approach that may create further WP:NPOV issues in the structure of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are women everywhere, and many of them and many groups of them are deserving of articles, but if we just do "Women of X" for every country (and why not states, provinces, cities, professions, fields of study, etc.), it could get crazy. And should the article "Women of X" be a discussion of the state of women of X or a list of prominent women of X? It's hopelessly vague and invites bloated, unfocussed garbage. Jacona (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure, the topic is very broad. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename History of women in Yugoslavia. Also could use better sources, which do exist. I agee with and adopt the reasoning of User:CT55555 WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to be renamed, the entire Category:Women by former country would need to be renamed as well. I don't think any such renaming is necessary. -Vipz (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TNT-ing it may be a necessary step towards recreating a better article, though I'm not sure if anyone will be willing to do that. Beccaynr has laid out a good chunk of reliable sources. -Vipz (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my research, I think there are various aspects of the topic that are notable, e.g. Feminism in Yugoslavia, and the book How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed (the sources in this newly-added section of the article do not all appear to be related to the book, but it appears to have WP:NBOOK notability, e.g. Kirkus Reviews, Prairie Schooner, Social Indicators Research, Le Journal des Alternatives, Foreign Affairs capsule review). For the other book cited in this new section, Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, it also appears to have WP:NBOOK notability, e.g. Guardian, New Yorker, Vox, see also Book Marks for additional reviews. A TNT approach that may work well for this broad topic is to instead develop the notable aspects based on the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing its notability, but the issue is that the way the article was written was from one source's perspective. It would require a substantial overhaul to even tell this one from more than one perspective, rewriting most of the article to introduce the new sources and material, while balancing it with the material already there. A TNT approach allows the article to be rewritten from scratch, to include all viewpoints. It would also allow someone to start the article in a draft, then simply move it here when it is ready to go. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the motivation to create Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism! User:Beccaynr CT55555 (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think WP:TNT would be the best approach for this article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the criterion of sourcing. All we have as citations are Barbara Jancar-Webster's book on Yugoslav women during the period 1941-45, a very limited one, and then a review of that book; a piece titled "Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism", which, apparently someone wants us to take seriously; then a book about gender politics in the Balkans. That's about it. Perhaps there is substantiation behind the void. For sure, it's best to start all over. -The Gnome (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence is a notable book by a notable anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee that deals with women's rights and role in society. So, I doubt that I'm alone in indeed wanting you to take it seriously. Ghodsee is a professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. CT55555 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So...you're discounting a book from a PhD because she titled it to attract attention on the shelves? FrederalBacon (talk) 19:07, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Knights Drum and Bugle Corps (2005)[edit]

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

Non-notable and defunct drum corps; unable to PROD because of a previously-contested PROD that was never followed up. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arts, and California. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I found mentions of the actual Velvet Knights competition online, there's nothing to suggest that the 2005 competition was notable. Of the 3 sites used as references, one doesn't mention this subject, another is a dead URL, and the third is an archived copy of what was a blog. Not even close. Wes sideman (talk)
Delete. There are simply not sources out there. There is plenty of enthusiasm. But Wikipedia is not a listing of indiscriminate information nor a fan website. -The Gnome (talk) 18:21, 14 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. Consensus to delete as failing WP:NPOL. Some sources have been argued to show significant coverage, but they are relatively trivial mentions of her in articles regarding gun violence. TigerShark (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Rotering[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NPOL. Being a mayor of a small suburban town, or running unsuccessfully for higher office (not even making it to the general election) does not automatically confer notability. All of the sources cited either mention her in passing or are WP:ROUTINE local coverage. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per...well, pretty much the exact same reasons as the first AfD, she hasn't changed offices or become more notable in that timeframe. Having a notable event happen in her town does not make her notable herself. Fbifriday (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Nothing has changed since first AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or at least Redirect to Highland Park, Illinois: She has run in multiple elections since the 2016 AFD, and obviously the Highland Park shooting brought her into the national spotlight, so it's wrong to say that nothing has changed. Normally, I don't think the mayor of a Highland Park-sized suburb would be notable, but there are enough little things here that make me lean toward Keep. At one point, she was considered a serious candidate for the US House of Representatives and was endorsed by Dick Durbin, so she had some name recognition beyond her suburb. She has generated a sizable amount of press in the Chicago area, and there's still material available that could be used to expand the article (although, to be fair, the current article doesn't clearly distinguish between the real Chicago Tribune and the suburb-specific newspapers within the Tribune organization). We could get into arguments about whether the local coverage counts towards anything. Personally, I happen to think the coverage that exists is good enough, but I'm not interested in splitting hairs over that. In any case, I think Rotering at least deserves a mention at Highland Park, Illinois, so a redirect seems like the worst-case scenario. Zagalejo (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MrMemer223 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD REPOST; as there doesn't seem to have been any change in notability since the last deletion discussion. She has run for higher office a few more times, each time losing in the primary before the general election. Many politicians repeatedly run for office and lose in the primaries, that doesn't make them notable, it just makes them persistent, and career politicos. A new redirect without history to Highland Park, Illinois can be created afterwards and protected against editing to prevent further recreation of a NN politico, if such a redirect is needed and desired. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSD "REPOST" (WP:G4) does not apply because the article is not substantially identical to its version during the prior AfD. Rotering has run in a few more primaries since the last AfD, and a mass shooting occurred in her hometown. There has been enough news coverage about her since 2016 to overcome REPOST. Edge3 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the reasons that:
- This person has been around Illinois politics for a number of years, even though the only political office she has won has been mayor of Highland Park.
- I live in Illinois, and she is one of those people whom I know that I had heard of before but didn't exactly know who she was, and I suspect there are other WP users (not just editors, but users) who are in a similar situation as myself.
- The sad events of the past week have put her (at least temporarily) into a national news spotlight, and this page is a good means of summarizing who she is for users alluded to in the point above.
- I admit I had not observed that some of the articles used in citations were newspapers in the Tribune family, as opposed to in the Tribune itself, but those can be reviewed and adjusted (although in the current media environment I think there can be some gray areas in situations like that, about what is and is not the actual Tribune).
- I don't see how it makes Wikipedia worse to retain and improve this article, and I don't see how it makes Wikipedia better to delete it.
- Thanks to all for their contributions and let's discuss further as needed. KConWiki (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suburban newspaper articles are valid sources. I just figured people in this AFD would be scrutinizing the sources, so I wanted to provide some clarity. (I agree that the online environment makes these distinctions a little fuzzy. Databases like ProQuest will list all of that stuff as coming from Chicago Tribune, when most of it probably appeared in physical form as part of the Highland Park News, or the Deerfield Review, or a similar paper.) Zagalejo (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one topic that could be added to the article is Highland Park's existing assault weapon ban, which brought Rotering a bit of national attention long before the recent shooting. (Here's a 2015 CBS News report which briefly features Rotering.) The ban was challenged and went to the Supreme Court, but survived. Zagalejo (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sad event was deleted from her biography, apparently not significant enough to bother editing in, instead of deleting. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been covered by the Chicago Tribune and its suburban subsidiaries. WP:NPOL does not require sources to have a non-local audience, so her coverage is sufficient. Edge3 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the coverage is incidental to recent events there. For mayors we should absolutely insist on coverage outside the readership area and over a broad amount of time, such conditions are not met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: There are some national sources cited above by @Zagalejo, concerning Highland Park's assault weapon ban. That coverage pre-dates the parade shooting. Additionally, Rotering is now getting national news coverage for her advocacy for legislation on assault weapons: PBS News Hour interview, Politico's Illinois Playbook, and Politico's article on Rotering's attendance at a White House event. Edge3 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As she is a notable person:

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/illinois-playbook/2022/07/11/biden-rotering-connect-on-assault-weapons-00045086
https://news.sky.com/story/mass-shooting-handbook-highland-park-mayor-nancy-rotering-issued-with-guide-after-independence-day-attack-that-killed-seven-12649170
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-highland-park-shooting-mayor-20220711-srdmc5v5ujayfico3ec2yn7efm-story.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/highland-park-mayor-cub-scout-crimo-b2116212.html

Noting the reliance on interviews above, also:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-pritzker-rotering-white-house-assault-weapons-20220711-io7emo6bevddblfsprkqz6wmyq-story.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/highland-park-mayor-nancy-rotering-pushed-assault-weapon-ban-years-before-july-4-bloodbath
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/7/6/the-terror-in-highland-park-the-us-is-exceptional-indeed

I could go on, but there really is a lot of news articles about her and her role as a mayor, including stuff in the past 24 hours CT55555 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Forensics on the sources, whether proffered or found, only bring into relief the dearth of verifiability. We have: Multiple reports about the assault weapon affair, but not about the mayor per se; interviews upon interviews on the same issue; news items about the White House and the guns problem, in which our subject appears; etc. This is an exemplary case of one-event fame. All the Keep suggestions essentially amount to is an amalgam of "I like it", "I know it", and "Surely, there must be sources". Generously, one could, at best, place a Redirect to Highland Park, Illinois. -The Gnome (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability isn't really the issue here. There's plenty of information available about her political career. All of this predates the parade shooting. Chicago-area politics are exhaustively covered by local news sources. Highland Park has its own newspaper, the Highland Park News, which is part of the Chicago Tribune family. As I mentioned earlier, one could perhaps argue that the local sources don't count toward notability, although I'm on the fence about that. "ITSLOCAL" arguments get into philosophically fuzzy territory. Zagalejo (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Fbifriday. For those who are writing about her advocacy receiving nationwide attention, it is an instance of WP:TOOSOON. It has been ten days since the mass murder. The coverage is about the murders themselves, not so much her personal activism. Now, if her activism gets this level of attention a year from now? Maybe I'll reconsider. Otherwise, she's a smaller town mayor whose coverage amounts to coverage of elections in which she is incidental (e.g. any semi-valid primary challenger to Brad Schneider would have gotten that level of political coverage).--Mpen320 (talk) 03:06, 15 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.