Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cahoon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Besides his criminal background which has a fair amount of coverage but not enough to satisfy GNG, his other coverage is routine sporting reports which amount to nothing. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 02:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 22 March 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volnoe Delo[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage to justify a separate article for this organization. If there's any encyclopedic content that relies on RS, it can be merged with the Oleg Deripaska article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First United Methodist Church (Lufkin, Texas)[edit]

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

This already was ruled keep before, but the logic was faulty. Having a certain amount of members does not guarantee notability. This church is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and lacks the adequate sourcing to be considered notable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 21 March 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomohiro Oura[edit]

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

Tagged for lack of references and notability back in 2016 when it was created. A search does not reveal significant coverage by independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete. doesnt seem to be notable based on the scarce google search results. RZuo (talk) 08:24, 29 March 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 Love over Gold. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph Road (song)[edit]

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

This longstanding article was converted to a redirect a few years back (without any discussion that I can see, although it remained a redirect after a brief edit war), but has been periodically recreated. It really needs a formal decision on whether it is notable enough for an article, or should just redirect to its album. Lithopsian (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian, Please to explain reason for why you nominated deletion or redirecting this Wikipedia article? Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained. There have been, and still are, disagreements about whether this song is notable enough to have its own article, or should be a redirect. The best way to settle these disputes is not by a slow edit war. The article existed for a number of years and was deleted-by-redirecting without discussion. Now it is time for the discussion. Once there is consensus, then edits to the contrary are simply vandalism and can be quickly reverted. Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, it's one of Dire Straits' most notable songs. There are many songs that didn't chart and weren't released as singles but are widely regarded as classics, and this is a pretty blatant example. I really don't understand why it should fail notability. Frankiethefreak (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there isn't much reliable evidence to prove it's one of the band's most notable songs. There's lots of references to primary sources (markknopfler.net), unreliable sources that fail WP:USERG (Songfacts and Setlist.fm) and passing mentions in full album reviews. I'm very familiar with the song, and anecdotally I agree that it has become a popular Dire Straits track. But my anecdotal evidence counts for nothing, which is why I still believe that reliable independent evidence that it passes WP:NSONG is thin on the ground. I've discussed this in the past on the article's talk page as well. Richard3120 (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at worst it could be redirected instead of being outright deleted, I'd say. However, as far as you know, are there more reliable sites? Frankiethefreak (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, unfortunately, otherwise I would have attempted to improve the article. Really, the only reliable sources we have here are passing mentions in the context of the entire album review (and considering the album only has five songs, and this track takes up nearly 35% of the entire running time, it's hardly a surprise it gets a mention in any album review), a listicle from Classic Rock magazine, and possibly this article [1], although a Mercedes-Benz magazine telling you what songs are good for driving to is reaching for notability. For the record, I think it is very unlikely that this article will be deleted outright – I think what Lithopsian was trying to do here is get some consensus as to whether this article should stay or be redirected, because it's been bouncing backward and forward between the two states over the past few years. I was one of the people who redirected this article in the past, and at present I still don't see enough reliable sources to justify keeping it. But I will happily accept whatever decision is reached here. Richard3120 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the album, and merge anything here that isn't already there. While this is certainly a well-known song among some Straits fans, it definitely has not been covered to the point of having enough for a standalone article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Love over Gold. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:27, 26 March 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) ––FormalDude talk 09:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidharth Bhardwaj[edit]

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

This article doesn't pass WP:GNG. The subject has been a winner at MTV Splitsvilla in 2009, but according to me, this doesn't help the actor/model pass WP:ANYBIO. WP:NACTOR isn't met as well because there's no substantial role except in Kuku Mathur Ki Jhand Ho Gayi. ManaliJain (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to receive enough coverage to meet notability in sources like Times of India, Hindustan Times, and IANS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. While I personally think these sorts of articles are trivial and add little or no value to wikipedia, there really isn't a good policy based reason for deletion. Bhardwaj has WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage from major Indian news outlets over several years in relation to multiple reality television programs in which he participated and did well. If it were merely one competition we could argue he fails WP:BLP1E, but the subject has appeared in multiple reality TV programs so BLP1E does not apply. In the absence of a subject specific guideline, all we have is GNG which the subject seems to meet.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 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. Consensus after the relist and the list's improvement indicates clearly that it now meets WP:NLIST. (non-admin closure) ansh.666 01:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine[edit]

List of Russian generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What garbage. It's a list of 3 people, 3 people whom are already mentioned elsewhere (Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War, Category:Military personnel killed in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). If this were transformed into a category, it wouldn't even meet WP:SMALLCAT. To assume that enough Russian generals will eventually die in order to make this an actual list is pure WP:CRYSTAL (which the creator unintentionally gets at when they wrote "The best way to contribute is if people continue to add names to the list" on the talk page.

I know this was created in good-faith by a productive editor, but jesus there have been so many shitty articles created about this war, and this is one of them. Curbon7 (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as nominator I'm more or less fine with the article at this point, mostly thanks to the excellent work by Neutrality. It's probable that we will re-visit this and many other of the war articles later down the line, but for now it's in acceptable state in my opinion. For the record, this is what the article looked like when I nominated it, so I fully stand by my decision to nominate it at the time. (n.b. This is not a withdrawal (per WP:WITHDRAWN), and the other arguments should still be taken into consideration by the closer. I'm just stepping back from the discussion and throwing my hat into the reluctantly keep crowd.) Curbon7 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Curbon7 (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NLIST. As far as I'm aware we don't have lists of generals killed in any other conflict and so see no need to make an exception here. All 3 are already covered on Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War and there is a lack of reliably sourced analysis of what a high number of generals being killed indicates. I share Curbon7's concerns that far too many pages are being created about this war with scant regard for notability or sourcing. WP:NOTNEWS applies here, we are a lagging indicator and should not be trying to cover every new aspect of this war as it happens. Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of such lists for other conflicts can be explained by the fact that generals are not normally killed in conflicts. The fact that three Russian generals have already been killed makes this even more notable. Strebo7 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's at least one other "generals killed" in a war list : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._general_officers_and_flag_officers_killed_in_World_War_II 24.35.22.115 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list satisfies WP:NLIST. This policy states: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Many reliable sources identify the deaths of generals as a notable feature of this war.[1][2][3][4][5][6]. Another source, the BBC, that gives notability to the article by discussing the dead Russian generals as a group: Analysts believe that around 20 generals are leading Russian operations in Ukraine, meaning that if all the reported deaths are confirmed, one fifth of Russia's generals have been killed in action.. [7] I'm editing to continue to add sources which discuss dead Russian generals as a group or set as per WP:NLIST. These sources and the ones above are not sources for individual dead Russian generals but sources about the group or set.[8][9] “Three generals already — that’s a shocking number,” Michael McFaul, the former United States ambassador to Russia, said in an interview. On Wednesday, Ukrainian officials reported that a fourth general, Maj. Gen. Oleg Mityaev, the commander of the 150th motorized rifle division, had been killed in fighting. [10]. In addition, the category "Lists of generals" offers prima facie evidence of the feasibility of the article. Contrary to the assertion above, there is another list article of generals killed.[11]. That "too many" articles are being made is not a valid argument for deletion. On CNN David Petraeus's comments add additional legitimacy to this article as per WP:NLIST, stating is "Very very uncommon" for so many generals to be killed and that the Ukrainians "have been picking them off left and right."[12]. I disagree with suggestions that this article be merged with the casualties articles. Reliable sources specifically identify dead Russian generals in Ukraine as a notable group and therefore this merits a standalone article as per WP:NLiST. There is the report today that the Ukrainians killed a flag officer. If this is confirmed then the title could be changed to 'List of Russian generals and flag officers killed...'.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Newsweek has not been able to independently verify the claims." Mztourist (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Newsweek article contributes to the notability of the list. As I quoted from the policy, if reliable sources discuss a group or set then a List article of that group or set is appropriate; the deaths are verified in other sources (but some of the above too, e.g. WSJ). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified crap and WP:NOTNEWS. The second death is inferred from intercepted phone conversations, the third a tweet from the Ukrainian military. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon. At this stage, there will inevitably be much doubt about casualties. There will be claims and denials, and no easy way to verify anything. It is impossible to judge the value of lists like this, or ensure they are accurate, until we have the perspective of some historical distance. Elemimele (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With all due respect, this is barely even a list, with only 3 people. It looks like WP:TOOSOON. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 3 generals kicking the bucket during two weeks of war, is notable for a modern war (and feel free to show us that there are other modern wars with comparable numbers for one of the sides). The title is okay and notable. The list is notable and short - but not too short. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NLIST, like someone said before, also the Category alread exist, Category:Military personnel killed in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also I remember correcting a false death allegation of a Chechen leader named Magomed. Seems wiki-enthusiasm is responsible for the creationof spam articles.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - already covered by the article Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian and DPR/LPR military, it doesn't deserve a list of its own at this stage. P1221 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not aware of any other conflict where three or more "flag officers" of such rank from a world or regional power were killed in combat. This is quite remarkable and provides a high level of notability. Strebo7 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a valid argument for keeping. Also, List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. Curbon7 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The American Civil War, the various Napoleonic wars, and more recently the Vietnam War had general officers killed in combat or as a result of hostile fire. Claiming this conflict is somehow unique when it is not isn't a basis for keeping the list. Intothatdarkness 14:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In modern war this is much less common [2] Cloudjpk (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In Vietnam, at least 4 of the 7 U.S. major generals who died 1967-1970, died in helicopters or other aircraft.--It seems like the Russians are loosing major generals at approximately seventy-five times the rate that the U.S. was loosing theirs. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OR, irrelevant to the article’s notability. Dronebogus (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    International business times is also unreliable per WP:Perennial sources Dronebogus (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and no issue with a un-redirect if/when a standalone list is needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to keep now the article has been expanded and has more than 2 names on the list too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The continued death toll amongst Russian generals is making it a unique event. Bommbass (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd also like to add that it is doubtful any of these generals are actually notable, as the only WP:SIGCOV they have received is about their deaths (WP:BIO1E), and there seems to be little other notability. Curbon7 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless and until the three biographical articles are deleted, we can assume they are notable. —Michael Z. 00:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitaly Gerasimov. —Michael Z. 15:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War which already contains the list. EkoGraf (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are now officially seeing “Ukraine invasion cruft”, and this is an example. Three entries is not a list. If the fact that they are all generals is notable (which it probably is) then just add that somewhere else. It’s one sentence worth of information. Most of the keep arguments seem rather WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:ITSINTERESTING and one of the “sources” provided is a circular cite to WP based on WP:OTHERSTUFF Dronebogus (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should simply be a page listing causalities of military commanders of both the Ukrainian and Russian, this page is tiny and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.127.98.166 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. This is really just too soon. So far, only three Russian generals have been killed (only one of which has actually been confirmed) and there are just not enough people to justify a stand-alone list. If Russian generals continue to be killed, then a list article may be appropriate but until then I think the Casualties page is the best place for the contents of this article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Since my initial vote, the article has been greatly cleaned up and its plain that there has been substantial media coverage on the deaths of Russian generals during the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine. I believe that special attention still needs to be paid to verifiability, but I think this meets NLIST. Also, I think WP:RAPID can be reasonably applied to this list. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too short for a standalone list and already covered in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. At least one of the entries is referenced to a claim by Ukrainian intelligence and may not be accurate. Hut 8.5 08:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NLIST. I mean who puts this shit on Wikipedia? I mean five generals, that is scant information for a list. Felicia (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of Russian commanders killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and expand to include other high-ranking Russian officers KIA. This article can potentially serve as a source.--KoberTalk 20:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Changing my vote. Russian generals are being killed on a weekly basis and the war has no end in sight. --KoberTalk 17:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Even if the article is kept, the source you provide cant be used totally since is ONCE AGAIN claiming the death of Magomed Tushaev (a proven claim/fake), citing The Daily Mail, a deprecetad source, the first ever "unreliable source" for use as a reference on the English Wikipedia.[13]. Mr.User200 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too soon, wait until more generals are killed Taiwanesetoast888 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The best way to contribute is if people continue to add names to the list" I can think of one way to add names… Dronebogus (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to include all senior officer ranks from unit commander and up. It is a perfectly valid topic for a list, but the definition is unnecessarily restrictive. —Michael Z. 00:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would just add even more non-notable people to the list. The only real way to make a list like this is to not make it at all by just making the category if there are enough entries to surpass WP:SMALLCAT. Curbon7 (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As WP:NLIST explains, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." It appears that most Delete voters and indeed the nominator have a poor understanding of WP:NLIST. As regards WP:Smallcat, neither list of generals nor Russian generals are small categories. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, a list can contain subjects without their own article. —Michael Z. 15:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to narrow of a topic. A list of notable people who were killed is probably a meaningful topic. A list specifically of Russian generals seems too narrow. --B (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too soon at the very least. Wikipedia seems to be getting ahead of itself. Intothatdarkness 14:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are now up to four generals killed. Clearly a notable topic. At a minimum this discussion could wait until the end of hostilities. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least merge/redirect to a section in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War - this is noteworthy. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The section on Russian military deaths already lists them. Hut 8.5 17:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too soon for a list like that. Individual articles suffice. Atchom (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian and DPR/LPR military. I'd suggest merging, but they're already listed there. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is becoming increasingly notable due to media coverage, so I'd now suggest keeping the article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with Strebo7, satisfies WP:NLIST because unusual, notable Cloudjpk (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are no problems with such list whatsoever. The criteria for inclusion are obvious, and it has 5 items already.My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Too soon, too short. Redirect to the Casualties list, as others have suggested. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect. Contains useful information not easily seen elsewhere. Should be Keep if expanded. KingAntenor (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With a sixth Russian general on the list - would that be an acceptable expansion, in your view? 89.8.146.21 (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC) 89.8.146.21 (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or merge to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War per above. Brandmeistertalk 09:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)~[reply]
    Keep for Now. Topic is of current interest and significant to the on-going war, as well as to future combat. Once war is over, then merge into a larger article about the war, along with the Casualties article mentioned by Brandmeister. Please note that there are unique aspects to the deaths of generals that make them much more important than just causalities. 70.121.218.235 (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Any user-account can copy this article and call it "List of generals killed during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine". Technically that might not be a merge - that would be the start of a "new" article with a broader scope. That would include generals that are citizens of any country. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of media attention to the number of Russian major generals who have been killed in the invasion. The number increased by 33% since the AfD was posted. There is a significant problem of geographical bias in Wikipedia, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia about the world written in English, not an encyclopedia about the English-speaking world. We have List of active duty United States Marine Corps major generals and List of active duty United States Air Force major generals. It seems that US major generals haven't died as much in the last few decades as Russian ones have in the last few weeks, so in the Russian case, it seems that the dead ones are more notable than the live ones. An alternative would be to broaden the scope to List of Russian major generals, including both live and dead ones. Apparently there are 20 Russian major generals in Ukraine right now (or 16 after subtracting the four deceased): why should they be less notable than US ones? Boud (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boud: A Russian major general is not equivalent to USMC or USAF major generals; the Russian ones are one star and the US ones are two-star ranks. See how the Wall Street Journal covered the last major general's death, by not even calling him a major general presumably as it causes some confusion. Four Russian brigadier generals have died in three weeks on the battlefield in Ukraine, Kyiv officials said, showing faults in Moscow’s ability to lead troops into battle.[3] Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have improved the article and I think it now comfortably meets the WP:HEYMANN standard. Neutralitytalk 14:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work improving the article! AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: article has been significantly expanded. The list is useful in organising the unusually high number of general kills in one place and the unusual story behind why it is happening. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The new sources really strengthen the notability of the 'group or set' as per WP:NLIST. Thanks. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject, has enough media attention, and has been improved upon recently. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified rumors, indiscriminate and too short list. Confirmed casualties can already be listed in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Rio65trio (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too soon. --34 super héros (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is pure garbage, unverified and unconfirmed. Afawk it comes from the propaganda mill. The actually confirmed casualties are already covered by the article Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian and DPR/LPR military, this article has no reason to exist.190.135.235.139 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified and biased. BobNesh (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sheer number of such high-ranking officers killed in such a short period of time is, AFAIK, unprecedented in modern warfare, and has by itself become a notable topic. Numerous articles have been written by various news agencies around the world noting it as being extremely unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.73.68 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The war has been the top global news for more than 3 weeks, and the astonishing number of high ranked Russian generals killed is one of the most notable outcome of the ongoing war. Also, it is possible that the list will be further expanded in the future, becoming an even more notable page. 182.239.85.232 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. It's five people if not more by now. Anyway, this meets WP:NLIST, there are numerous newsmedia making lists of notable Russian military casualties, a sort of trophy for the Ukrainians. Here's a Polish list from a RS newsoutlet: [4]. That said, I'd not object to a merge and redirec to a section in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NLIST and the sources provided by User:AugusteBlanqui. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - besides that it seems to be within guidelines, I think it's also good to have this info expanded in one article as here. One note regarding the editor that put this list up for deletion, not a language and tone that would be accepted in Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål, which I mainly contribute to. It should be possible to discuss keeping or deleting an article without resorting to language such as "What garbage", and this one: "I know this was created in good-faith by a productive editor, but jesus there have been so many shitty articles created about this war, and this is one of them." Kind regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ... and rename after the XXth entry.☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 21:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    and, 2nd thoughts, anyway, in 50 or so yrs it becomes a compendium of lists of servicemen buried on some side of the sides (whatever this means, there was the 1st German War, the 2nd German War, and, now, so, why not to call/name it the 1st Russian war?),... looking/listening live via BBC World News (+ ~50 FTA channels) interviewees on the subject of “Nuremberg trial 2.0”☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 21:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    and, for the sake of «neutrality»/„objectivity“, or whatever one likes to title/name it, there are at least two sides in every conflict, so, there should be at least one list for the UA side in this conflict too...☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 00:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pietadè, mate what are you talking about lol. Curbon7 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to meet WP:NLIST.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 02:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - list appears relevant and useful, especially in light of this topic becoming somewhat mainstream. Allows for sources to be corroborated without cluttering the main article. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 08:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remember Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Media love to parrot back official propaganda; we shouldn't turn into an article every unverified story that pops up in the news. These "deaths" haven't been confirmed by Russian military sources, it won't be too late to create the article when and if it happens. Yurizuki (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Russians will never officially verify them. If they have got evidence that the news are fake they will immediately deny it. It is very likely that those 5 generals are really killed, as Russians did not deny the death of them, which probably means that the Russians know well they are killed just they don't want to further discourage the soldiers from invading. 182.239.90.135 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pure WP:CRYSTAL, your own speculation about what will or will not happen. Crystalballing has no place in Wiki. Also, Russian military has acknowledged the death of many leading officers (and honored them), the most recent being Navy commander Andrey Paliy. And your "never" is nonsense: of course everything will be known, verified or debunked, as the conflict ends. Thus WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH, WP:TOOSOON. Yurizuki (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per nominator: " I'm more or less fine with the article at this point".Tiny Particle (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page helps to keep things in order. 131.228.2.21 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, let this ongoing topic develop before assessing a delete vote. Yug (talk) 🐲 10:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also changed my mind just like the nominator User:Curbon7. Tradediatalk 12:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list of generals killed in this combat are well noted by several verified sources. In many cases these generals or admiral deaths have been confirmed by both sides, though exact dates and locations may not be as precise. Given other list pages like List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War follow a similar vein and I believe this page should remain. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the fact that this article relates to a developing event or series of events, additional time may be useful to evaluate whether these developments impact determinations of those who have previously participated in this discussion. BD2412 T 22:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 22:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that if their is strong and proven evidence that a senior russian general has been killed will of course i think that it should be reported if it is of course confirmed by the strongest type of standards that the americian and other respectible news sources use but at the same time i think that it needs to be made clear to all parties involved in the tragic violence that is currently going in that sector of the world that before anything will put in print it will be proven to be proven true in fact and frankly i think it should be told to any source that after a fair and clear look into the information that they have given to the press it is shown that the information proves to be a lie from either russia or ukraine it doesn't matter which side it comes from that person or source that gave out information that they will lose their right to post or talk about anything of value about the war between the two sides in this matter and honestly if the ukraines can prove with solid evidence that they took out a russian general then of course it is yet another sad thing that happens when war takes place between two opposing sides and frankly if russia wants to stop having generals killed in it's attack on ukraine then it should demand that the system in russia end this war in an orderly fashion and begin good peace talks that hopefully will bring about a clear end to the sad violence between the two parties that are taking part in this sad affair that yes at the end of the day lies at the feet of the russian military and russia because it threw the first punch and in closing i say to russia it's simple if you want to stop having your generals taken out in this war then get your tails back to russia and out of ukraine thank you greg hiley irvine california those our my thoughts on this matter thank you. 2600:6C52:6F00:1048:969:D94:5793:4C7D (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it demonstrates military capabilities and weaknesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.68.20 (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Page has been improved since nomination, and now as the situation has progressed, there has been more media coverage discussing the issue of Russian general deaths, rather than just one-off death reports for individual generals. Thus, there is ample evidence that this has now become a topic of its own, at least within the coverage of the war. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per WP:HEY. Fairly and squarely meets WP:NLIST, and has constantly been improved, which ought to give confidence of further improvement continuing. Move to cover commanders of equivalent rank a bit lower than general. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A combination of listcruft, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR in light of people's obsession with this war. Notice how there are no similar lists for much bigger conflicts?--Catlemur (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to briefly reply to your last point. The main reason why there are so few similar lists is generals tend not to be killed in such a significant number and certainly not in such a time frame (there is this list article and it looks like less than half died from hostile fire!); the number of Russian generals killed in such a short span is truly unprecedented--"shocking" according to a source quoted above. This is why we see the group/set as per WP:NLIST being talked about in so many sources. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NLIST, was nominated when it was weak, has since been improved, even the nominator changed their vote to keep, so I think they should have withdrawn it. People are saying it's TOO SOON, but it's not, as the list meets the criteria as it stands, so I disregard that argument. I think a lot of people voted delete before the article reached it's current quality CT55555 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: the rapid loss of Russian (and affiliated) leadership has been extremely notable compared to other conflicts, especially in the limited breadth of time. The conflict will be studied by historians and various media for a longtime to come from many perspectives, and the loss of so many flag officers will be first mentioned in the opening pages/minutes of most.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: agreeing with the general sentiment that the absence of such list for other modern conflicts is indication that losing that many that fast is notable JidGom (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change my vote to Keep. Stuff has changed since I voted for delete. Now that notabilty is established, it now passes the notabilty guidelines. Felicia (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable. The topic is now being widely covered in the media, and by its nature will remain notable when the war recedes into history. See User:AugusteBlanqui's comment in particular. Gildir (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic is discussed in the (Western) media a lot these days, precisely because the high death toll of senior commanders is unusual. I'd be in favor of also expanding the lede to explain this in more detail, and also expanding/renaming the scope to all high-ranking commanders vs just generals. Timbouctou (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic itself has been covered substantially and in detail by many reliable sources from different countries See example from El Pais in Spain. It clearly meets WP:GNG. Since the topic is covered directly the WP:OR concerns are invalid and I disagree that it violates WP:NOTNEWS. The amount of coverage and the historic relevance of the invasion make very likely the lasting notability of the event, as it has been deemed relevant in the development of the conflict by multiple reliable sources worldwide. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the revised comment of the nominator. In its current state, it's encyclopaedic enough and has sufficient RS. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is a considerable coverage by WP:RS and notability of Russian commanders having high mortality rate in Ukraine. --Mindaur (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Considering that this is a very high rate of general officers killed in a conflict Josey Wales Parley 14:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's a lot of coverage on this by the media and academia, it's notable and I suspect the list will get larger as the war drags on. LordLoko (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Third Russian general killed in Ukraine 'in sign of weakness among Putin's forces'". The Independent. 2022-03-11. Retrieved 2022-03-14.
  2. ^ Shoaib, Alia. "How the Russian officer elite is being decimated in Ukraine – 9 generals and commanders who were killed in combat". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-03-14.
  3. ^ "Which Russian generals have been killed in Ukraine? The key military commanders Putin has lost". inews.co.uk. 2022-03-09. Retrieved 2022-03-14.
  4. ^ Osipovich, Alan Cullison and Alexander (2022-03-11). "Russian General Is Killed in Ukraine as Airstrikes Intensify". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2022-03-14.
  5. ^ Palmer, Ewan (2022-03-09). "These top Russian commanders have been killed so far, according to Ukraine". Newsweek. Retrieved 2022-03-14.
  6. ^ "Russian generals face peril as Ukraine invasion intensfies". France 24. 2022-03-08. Retrieved 2022-03-14.
  7. ^ "War in Ukraine: Fourth Russian general killed - Zelensky". BBC News. 2022-03-16. Retrieved 2022-03-18.
  8. ^ Pancevski, William Mauldin, Thomas Grove and Bojan (2022-03-16). "Four Russian Generals Killed in Three Weeks Show Moscow's Vulnerabilities in Ukraine". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2022-03-18.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ Novelly, Thomas (2022-03-17). "What the Reported Deaths of 4 Russian Generals Mean About the Fighting in Ukraine". Military.com. Retrieved 2022-03-18.
  10. ^ Cooper, Helene; Barnes, Julian E.; Schmitt, Eric (2022-03-16). "As Russian Troop Deaths Climb, Morale Becomes an Issue, Officials Say". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-18.
  11. ^ "List of U.S. general officers and flag officers killed in World War II", Wikipedia, 2022-03-13, retrieved 2022-03-14
  12. ^ Video: Retired Gen. Petraeus explains how Ukrainians are taking out Russian generals - CNN Video, retrieved 2022-03-20
  13. ^ Benjakob, Omer (9 January 2020). "Why Wikipedia is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 20 June 2020. Retrieved 26 April 2020.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Azov Battalion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azov Special Purpose Regiment[edit]

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

Blatant WP:POVFORK with article text copied cite numbers and all from elsewhere and personal opinions scattered throughout in Elinruby's own voice (I have struck the preceding line. What I thought were personal comments were infact unattributed quotes that had been poorly copied). Any notability this name has indicates its an organizational rebrand of Azov after it's integration with the Ukrainian National Guard, and I can find no evidence that it is at all an actually separate organization. Is a potential Redirect but should otherwise be Deleted. BSMRD (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several meaning you and Elinruby? - hako9 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
??? No, that means user Ymblanter who started the thread about merge and others. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hako9: I don't know who supported a merge. I personally said maybe, too soon to tell. Please keep my name out of your mouth unless you are willing to be accurate. Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion. We can import some information (those with sources) from this article into the main Azov article.--Mhorg (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:Merge and delete , you can't do that. It is a problem with attribution if you delete the page that something was cut from. You could redirect it after merging whatever small portion you want merged, but you cannot delete it. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe merge later The description above misrepresents the article and is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    • I am trying very hard to assume good faith here but may of the nom's concerns have been addressed and the these answers have been dismissed with ad hominems.
    • The article nominated for deletion is a literal translation from the Ukrainian article -- tagged as such -- about the unit of the Ukrainian National guard, and is merely one of dozens such translations I have done over the years.
    • It still has the reference numbers from the Ukrainian article because the references have to be translated in by hand and the numbers help me match it up to the original. This has been done for the first few references and would probably have been finishec by now if only I weren't currently being wikilawyered. At least one of these imported references is quite excellent and I have suggested that they use it at Azov Battalion to help remedy the POV problems over there and the utter failure to give any weight to the action in combat of a military unit that is currently keeping Russians out of Mariupol, preferring to spend ink trying to demonstrate with bad sources (see current post at RS) that this unit is somehow Nazi. It either is or it isn't, but the current sources don't prove that, yet some really good suggested sources *that actually support this contention* have been dismissed out of hand.
    • AGF, the nom is rather new and perhaps hasn't yet encountered the portion of the RS policy that I pasted on the Azov Battalion talk page. But they don't allow anyone to explain it to them either ;)
    • But back to the article about the regiment. It should not be deleted because it covers an entity that is very notable in Ukrainian military history and provides a lot of military history information that is currently not covered in the article about the battalion. It is true that there is some overlap between the groups. It is unclear to what extent these are the same people, and while the badges etc seem to be the same, it seems to me that I have seen for example the SAS allow a French unit to use parts of its uniform. A beret I think it was.
    • In any event, the translated article has issues, which I will fix, and the Azov Battalion has quite a few more. It may however be possible to merge it into the history as the regiment if it cleans up its sourcing and we do determine it's the same group. *Since the Ukrainian article has felt a need to address this there is probably some there there, but I haven't spent a lot of time on content versus translation.
    • My mind is open on the subject but the article has been been nominated for both merger and deletion (of which I was not informed) and pretty much tag-bombed, yet it isn't even a full day old yet,
    • Yet it clearly isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, which is what the nom seems to want. Oh, and on the issue of editorializing, apart from punctuation and word order the only change to the text I have made myself was to change instances of "terrorist" to "hostile fighter" or something similar. I assume this is uncontroversial. I don't doubt that there are other issues but I want to fix the references; these are in Ukrainian, but that doesn't make them not RS as the nom appears to believe (really really needs to go read the RS policy). There are probably many English sources available for much of this but when we do translations we do the translation first, as I understand it for copyright reasons.
    • I would love to finish that btw. Are we done here? I haven't had lunch yet and the article is still less than 24 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accusing another editor of falling for IDONTLIKEIT is the easiest and least valuable of rebuttals. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Usually, yes. It does however happen to be true in this case. An article purporting it be about a military unit conflates it with several other things and does not address its military activities, which by the way only include keeping Russians from taking Mariupol. Right now. But any attempt to even discuss a change to that article — or even the reliable sources policy — is dismissed as coming from brainwashed Nazis or something. So fine. Those editors don’t want to discuss the military history. They say it isn’t notable.
    (Mariupol!)
    I translated the Ukrainian article about the military unit, exactly as I have translated dozens of other articles about military units, and am still doing. Yes it is a still work in progress, but it is already better today as an article about the regiment, than Azov Battalion. It will be fully finished out but it is already highly sourced and detailed and there is even more still at the Ukrainian article.
    There is obviously a great deal that Ukrainians think should be said about this Ukrainian military unit and clearly it is notable. Personally I think this should be a boomerang for misrepresenting a translation as some deranged editorial rant. But also for driving away new editors and refusing very valid suggestions from me and at least a dozen others, not to mention the likely massive BLP violations Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I am not reading all of that. Please use paragraph separations next time instead of walls of text. Curbon7 (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7: Your point is well taken and I have edited some in, plus fixed a couple of typos. I invite you to take another look if so moved. Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a single reliable source. - hako9 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a single source in English because it is a translation from the Ukrainian wikipedia, lol. This can be remedied if you guys will stop throwing temper tantrums. There are probably English citations in the world for at least some of it. At least one of the ones I have translated so far is quite excellent and I suggested on the battalion page that you guys use it also. Thank you for being exhibit A that the editors currently OWNing the brigade page don't understand the RS policy Elinruby (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's funny. Coming from someone who hasn't provided a single reliable source. - hako9 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the reliable sources policy. Elinruby (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hako9:, at the time you made your recent comment about no reliable sources, rev. 1078498128 of the article had nine references, almost all of which are sufficiently notable to have an article about them on English Wikipedia, including: ICTV (Ukraine) (ictv.ua), Ukrinform (ukrinform.ua), Ukrayinska Pravda (pravda.com.ua), National Guard of Ukraine (ngu), Ukrainian Independent Information Agency (unian), Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ukraine) (mvs.gov.ua), and Television Service of News (tsn.ua). Do you consider all of these unreliable for the purpose of the article under consideration? Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: They maybe notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. They are as reliable as RT/Sputnik in my personal opinion. You may well disagree with this, but since these sources aren't vetted and haven't gained a consensus through WP:RS/P, I believe, I am entitled to this opinion, inasmuch as you are to state that these are indeed reliable. But more importantly, as per WP:NONENG, However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance. I think no one would doubt, that there are mainstream perennial sources available on this subject. Since, I haven't mentioned this article being a POV fork, as my reason, allow me to state my concurrence over this. Some additional, carefully chosen and cherry picked RS have been added to this article since nomination, but all I see is a perverse version of the original article, devoid of some essential uncomfortable truths. But you can't really apply lipstick on the face of a pig and call it beautiful. - hako9 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Russian government owned propaganda media like RT and Sputnik are as reliable to you as privately owned major Ukraine news outlets, then you should really resign from expressing any opinion at all on the subject, since you are either clueless or biased towards Russia. Kyrylkov (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Azov Battalion. I don't see much here that isn't covered there, but it's pretty clear to me that we should not have two articles on the same military entity. I disagree that there is not a single ireliable source here (UA Pravda is a mainstream news organization, for example) but any sort of merge would need to be very intentional if we're to do it right since the article structures are rather different. Much of the article is currently uncited as well, which makes any potential merge difficult. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is simply a translation of the Ukrainian article? It's unfinished? (The footnotes that are merely copied numbers that don't point at references suggest that too.) Then why is this not in draft space? It's not done. There are no acceptable secondary sources. It's not well written (and that's putting it mildly). We should redirect this title to Azov Battalion, and send the article itself back to draft space. Elinruby, this should not have been placed in mainspace. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article translated from the Ukrainian Wikipedia? I was not aware of it. In this case, all the sources used must be thoroughly checked, because it is well known that Ukrainian sources have very particular interpretations of certain topics.--Mhorg (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhorg: It’s been tagged as a translation from the very start. Ukraine has indeed had issues with some of its media outlets being owned or controlled by Russian oligarchs, as discussed at the related Russian information war against Ukraine, which was simultaneously smothered smothered in wiki proceedings, but of course that’s just a coincidence. The sources are already vetted, but feel free to do so again. As a matter of courtesy, I’ll save you some time by drawing your attention to my recent post at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether Ukrainian Pravda had any relationship to the Russian Pravda. It does not and has a stellar reputation apparently. “Pravda” merely means “Truth” in both languages. This is the publication most frequently used in the references. The references have to be manually brought over and I did yes, pay attention to RS. I omitted one to an announcement on Facebook that merely referenced that the group had made an snnouncement, but I am dealing with people who think that references have to be in English and the announcement was just not important enough for another argument with people who refuse to read the reliable sources policy. thank you for your comment. Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article should be immediately deleted and the author banned. Its just blatant Ukrainian propaganda meant to spin a new narrative on the neo nazi Azov Battalion. BritishToff (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, no. We're not going to do that, not like that. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/redirect: I think the everyone involved would benefit if this article was draftified; from what the page author writes above, it seems this is an incomplete translation, so a draftification would allow them to work on the article in peace; for the rest of us, it gets the article's present form out of mainspace. I also just want to remind the author of 2 things: (1) don't use this article as a WP:POVFORK just because your arguments on another page aren't getting consensus, and (2) ensure that you give proper intra-wiki attribution if you copied any content from another article on any Wikipedia. This latter point is a requirement for copyright reasons; you can find info on this at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Curbon7 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
credit to the Ukrainian Wikipedia was religiously given on ever single edit. Of course. I have been translating articles for a very long time now. Many of them about military units, as it happens.

It would have been courteous to check the article history before implying otherwise. Elinruby (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Azov Battalion, there is no justification for having two pages about the same unit. I endorse User:Curbon7's comments above. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect to Azov Battalion as they are one and the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, redirect, merge: There is no justification for two articles, but if there is material here that would benefit the other article the best solution seems to be to draftify and then carefully merge the stronger content into the other. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be kept if we are separating the National Guard unit from the 2014 Battalion. It should be merged if wiki considers them to be the same formation. Currently there is an issue with the OG Azov page being schizophrenic where it cant decide if its about the national guard unit or the former far-right paramilitary battalion...so whatever path affects my vote. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Exactly. Except you forgot to mention the political party started by the guy who was commander for a while in 2014, and whoever it is that the Russians want us to think they are. I know that sounds cray-cray, but the Russians really do keep blaming this unit for their own most recent atrocities in Mariupol, where this unit has had a large hand in foiling their they plans :) But yeah. The Azov Battalion as it stands, is definitely not a military history article about one or even several military units. The many battles are not mentioned, nor the battle honors, nor the armaments.Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, you put a lot of comments up here; I'm just going to say a few things. a. saying stuff like "This can be remedied if you guys will stop throwing temper tantrums" is just never going to make you friends, and in the end that kind of commentary is blockable. Please stop making things personal. b. all the things you say about translating, about notes, about copy edits--all that simply strengthens me in my opinion that this should NOT be in article space, but in draft space. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is reason to separate the two. The old battalion was made part of the national guard, and there is a line of direct continuity between them. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/delete: I support this and agree that it's a clear POV fork largely written by a single person and should probably be deleted or at the very least redirected. The Azov Battalion article already talks about the regiment as a part of the national guard but also includes its history, as any proper encyclopedic article should. A case could perhaps be made that that article should be renamed "Azov Special Operations Detachment" with a redirect for "Azov Battalion", but this separate article is not the way to handle it. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't help your argument to state that it was written by a single person; which isn't an Afd criterion. In any case, if you meant that it was translated by one person, that's clear from the history, and also from the statements made in this discussion, but it is not relevant. For the record, the original was written by 168 editors in 686 edits over 7+ years, and then translated by one editor. Many articles on en-wiki follow a similar course, and it's a fine way to expand coverage at en-wiki. So even it should be merged or redirected, it should not be because it "was written by one person", even if that were true. Mathglot (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
good thing I am here to keep Wikipedia accurate and not to make friends. TL;DR=The nomination contains a number of extremely untrue statements Many of the ad hominems above demonstrate a fundamental misconception that reliable sources are limited to English-language Google results. If I were an admin in this thread I would find that useful information. That’s all folks Elinruby (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for help at the Ukrainian Wikipedia - I made the following post there titled Asking for help from English speakers:

I have done a machine translation of this article (not ideal I realize) and lightly edited it to fix the machine translation errors. Some other editors are trying to delete it because another article titled “Azov Battalion” exists that portrays the group as a NeoNazi root of all evil. I think that the military unit that is currently fighting so valiantly against an undisputed Russian aggressor deserves an article that discusses it as a military unit. Could some editors that speak English please come talk to some of the underinformed editors who are discussing this at the English language wkipedia? I realize that many of the editors here may currently be dealing with an actual threat to world freedom, but if anyone is currently safe and can comment if would help get some truth out.

Since we’ve established that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion, can we please allowing that post some time to reach some English speakers that are currently safe and not preoccupied with survival? The odds of any of this material making it into the current battalion article anytime soon are at the moment approximately zero, since I am still trying to explain the Reliable Sources policy on the talk page there and being called a brainwashed Nazi for thinking that a reliable source should discuss the topic does not need to be in English. There are a couple of posts about this at the Reliable Sources board, but it’s slow going as no one human could possibly write up all the jaw-dropping statements there, keep up with this AfD, and deal with the simultaneous retaliatory and insult-ridden request for merge at the related article Russian information war against Ukraine. Elinruby (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I please note that this is known as WP:CANVASSING and might be a blockable offence. Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I please reply that I notified the editors of an article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia about people who are keeping Russians out of Europe that wiklawyers are trying to censor a translation of their work? In what way would they not be interested parties? May I please also note that editors of the battalion article are calling friends in to an entirely pointless request for merge started at Russian information war against Ukraine minutes after I tried to explain to the the two-year-old requestor that they do not understand the reliable sources policy? I am happy for this discussion to proceed as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be stampeded by appeals to emotion and allow the time for interested parties to find their way out of the kill zone in Mariupol and say something about it. Everything I am doing against sneaks I am doing out loud and with notification and in the broad light of day. If trying to prevent censorship gets me blocked then heh, fine, I don’t think that would be Wikipedia anymore anyway. It will however have been a sweet dream while it lasted. Elinruby (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. So you have found a Wikipedia which can not be expected to be neytral on this question, translated an article from there thereby creating a POV fork, and now canvassed non-neutral editors to come here and to defend this POV fork.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
notif[ying] the editors of an article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia about people who are keeping Russians out of Europe that wiklawyers are trying to censor a translation of their work? is a textbook case of 'campaigning' per WP:CANVASSING. This is actually the second time I've seen you engage in WP:INAPPNOTE behavior regarding this topic, the first being at this discussion where you seemingly posted on the talk page of everyone who had posted on the Azov Battalion talk page in the past 6 months, which is 'spamming'. BSMRD (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What this user writes only shows that he is not willing to collaborate with the construction of the encyclopedia but is moved by other intentions such as defending his own country. I'm sorry, but reading all of his messages this is obvious. I think some administrators should be notified to intervene. It is enough to scroll through all the messages here and in the other discussion pages to realize this without any effort.--Mhorg (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to previous assertions, it is not canvassing to list a request for help on "[t]he talk page of one or more directly related articles" (WP:APPNOTE bullet #3). If one individually notified only those editors found to have similar views to one's own by checking their Talk page contributions first, that would be canvassing. Making a public request for assistance at a Talk page where any editor can see it is specifically allowed. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above notification strikes as a little betwixt and between. Granted it's not a "stealth" notification -- mainly because the user told us, right up there. But by no stretch of the imagination is it an APPNOTE, given the lack of neutral wording, and the choice of audience. OK yes, it's at a "directly related article"... on a different project. With different rules, outside the scope of our own, and almost certainly their own understanding of which NPOV on this issue might be. At least that's how I'd interpret "article" and "off-wiki" in this context; of course one might have come to the good-faith belief that it means "on any wikipedia", or even "on any wikimedia project". Anyhoo, it's in AN/I's hands now, where it appears to be trending 'sanctions needed' fairly fast. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the many comments above we do not need to have another article covering the same thing. The large sections of uncited text do not make me think a merge is needed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per other comments above. If there's any salvageable RS information it should be merged. Intothatdarkness 12:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge anything reliably sourced that's missing from target article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Unneccessary fork by an editor for all the wrong reasons(Pick a comment above for specific wrong reasons).Slywriter (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this WP:POVFORK to Azov Battalion. Miniapolis 22:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect per My very best wishes. I'd also ask whether there's a guideline on how we deal with successor organizations, if that is the case here; some examples have two articles, some don't. Case-by-case? Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the most relevant guideline is WP:SUMMARY. They're so closely related that we'd in the first instance have a single article covering all the incarnations and transmogfrications of this movement/battalion/regiment/etc, likely with sections on each. When those sections clearly establish independent notability, or are just too heckin' chonky for a single article any more, we'd retain a small such section, hatted with {{main}}, and split the bulk of it out separately into a new separate "sub-article". Obviously there's also the issue of when this is either motivated by, or provides an occasion of sin for, a WP:POVFORK. WP:AVOIDSPLIT in particular (part of the first page) and WP:SPINOUT (in the second) say a little more on the distinction. Don't know of anything specific to successor orgs as such, sorry. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/delete, clearly an attempt to POVFORK. Each wikipedia also had different standards for sourcing, and looking at the fact that most of the news come from state-owned media with questionable editorial independence, I wouldn't have high hopes that these are considered reliable on english wikipedia. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to Azov Battalion - WP:POVFORK - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:08, 28 March 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 Indonesian Cooking. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Yuen[edit]

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

Non-notable businesswoman and cookbook author. Judging from a quick web search, I don't see in-depth coverage in reputable news outlets that would lead me to assume see she meets our notability guidelines, e.g., WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE or WP:NAUTHOR. Also want to note that most of the article creator's (Cookiecupcake) edits have been to this article. Bridget (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Indonesian Cooking, her book, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources about her book.
    1. Significant coverage about her book, Indonesian Cooking:
      1. Batcha, Alijah (2012-04-15). "Indonesian Cooking: Satays, Sambals and More" (PDF). Berita Harian (in Malay). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-03-22. Retrieved 2022-03-22.

        The book review notes: "Seperti kebanyakan buku masak makan Asia terbitan Tuttle Publishing, buku masak yang terbaharu ini juga disisipkan dengan cara-cara membuat sos dan pencecah yang biasanya disertakan dengan hidangan. Buku ini mengandungi 81 resipi masakan rumah dari beberapa daerah di Indonesia seperti Jawa Timur, Bali dan Jawa Barat. Selain daripada cara-cara membuat sos dan pencecah, buku ini juga mengemukakan beberapa tip dan technik memasak seperti kebaikan menggunakan batu lesung, cara yang betul menggoreng nasi dan mi dan cara mengyimpan herba supaya boleh bertahan lama."

        From Google Translate: "Like most Asian cookbooks published by Tuttle Publishing, this latest cookbook is also interspersed with ways of making sauces and toppings that are usually included with dishes. This book contains 81 home cooking recipes from several regions in Indonesia such as East Java, Bali and West Java. Apart from the ways to make sauces and toppings, this book also presents some cooking tips and techniques such as the benefits of using a mortar and pestle, the correct way to fry rice and noodles and how to store herbs so that they can last a long time."

      2. Tripathi, Manote (2012-02-25). "The spice of Indonesian life: A new cookbook will have you serving up everything from nasi goreng to masakan jawa" (PDF). The Nation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-03-22. Retrieved 2022-03-22.

        The book review notes: "The dishes in this book range from the familiar to the exotic. Yuen offers easy-to-follow recipes to introduce each of these dishes that celebrate the use of organic products, fresh herbs and spices. The dishes laid out in this book reflect the breadth and depth of Indonesia’s vast culinary culture."

      Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

      A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

      1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
      Since Indonesian Cooking has been reviewed in Berita Harian, and The Nation, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
    2. Less significant coverage or passing mentions about her book Indonesian Cooking:
      1. Rahmiasri, Masajeng (2016-06-26). "Four great Indonesian cookbooks for your kitchen shelf". The Jakarta Post. Archived from the original on 2022-03-22. Retrieved 2022-03-22.

        This is a three-sentence book review. The book review notes: "With a desire to make an easy guide that anyone could follow in mind, Dina Yuen wrote this recipe book based on her experience in Jakarta. The Chinese-Russian chef and entrepreneur has learned about Indonesian culinary traditions since moving to Jakarta at the age of 12. Some of the recipes in the book are satay, gado-gado (steamed vegetables with peanut dressing), oxtail soup, and terong balado (eggplant sambal) recipe."

      2. Cicero, Linda (2012-04-25). "Cicero: Take a dip into Indonesia with savory peanut sauce". Athens Banner-Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-03-22. Retrieved 2022-03-22.

        The column spends four sentences on the book Indonesian Cooking. The column notes: "I'd just started cooking from a fascinating new cookbook, "Indonesian Cooking" by Dina Yuen (Tuttle, $16.95). Yuen explores the tastes of Indonesia, with its myriad culinary influences from Asian neighbors and European colonizers. She gives a great introduction to Indonesian cooking while also making it easy to find what you need in Western markets."

      3. Levy, Faye (2013-04-18). "Craving coconut curry: The fish soup enriched with coconut milk came in a very large bowl. It was flaming red in color and turned out to be fiery in taste". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2022-03-22. Retrieved 2022-03-22.

        The article notes: "This recipe is from “Indonesian cooking.” Author Dina Yuen notes that the coconut milk blends with the other ingredients to create a rich and succulent stock. Yuen adds 3 pieces sliced fresh galangal along with the ginger, but the soup has plenty of flavor without it."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Are these sources sufficient for Dina Yuen to meet WP:NAUTHOR? Cunard (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to book article. My impression is that if there is only one notable book, we usually just have an article on the book (putting brief author info in a “background” section) unless there is enough biographical coverage to also be a GNG pass for the person. I wouldn’t argue for a NAUTHOR pass on the basis of just one cookbook. This is a solid NBOOK pass for the book though so a merge seems like a great alternative to deletion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think Cunard's sources are enough to show that the cookbook passes WP:NBOOK, which notes that reviews can count toward establishing notability. Arguing that Yuen also meets WP:NAUTHOR would probably be a stretch, and in any event we have editorial discretion to decide that both the author and the book should be discussed in the same article. Merging to an article that doesn't yet exist is somewhat odd, but I'm aware of no policy or guideline forbidding it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you all for your comments and feedback about the sources and the guidelines WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR. I've created Indonesian Cooking. Cunard (talk) 09:53, 28 March 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! 20:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Sheth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG weak sources @@@XyX talk 20:55, 21 March 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! 20:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rabra Family[edit]

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

Not seeing enough of a claim to significance for this family here. I also believe that WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies. Moved prematurely over from Draft:Rabra Family without making any attempt at addressing the issues that led to the AfC decline. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Note that the article Rabra has already been deleted. gidonb (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no indication that this family – or any of its members, for that matter – have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. While genealogical information can be included in an article about a notable subject, WP:NOTGENEALOGY is clear that this sort of stand-alone family tree is not encyclopedic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After removing the sockpuppet votes, there doesn't seem to be any consensus for anything other than deleting the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aethel Partners[edit]

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

No sign of In-depth, independent coverage. Fails WP:ORG Behind the moors (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Behind the moors - I disagree with this article being deleted. Article is well written and from reliable sources. Thank you ScottWillis45 (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there do look to be sources listed on the Portuguese Wiki article, that look like it may pass WP:GNG, and could be added to this English language article. Would like the input of a Portuguese speaker without a COI on the sources there though. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although on the other hand, Aethel Mining already exists (so this page seems like a duplicate), and they failed to obtain Novo Banco according to the text on that article, and they may or not actually become owners of Chelsea. All of which is meaning that I'm leaning towards delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, not happy about possible COI so best to kick this out. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Behind the moorsI am a representative of Aethel Group and its founders Ricardo Santos Silva and Aba Schubert. Could you please delete the 3 pages. These pages are abusive and should be deleted immediately. Please text me here if you want to discuss this further. Wikipedia does not allow me to include my email. Thank you and best regards Rhead1967 (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOT authorized content Rhead1967 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Behind the moors@PeacefulJack@Star Mississippi@No Great Shaker
Can someone please help me. This is very urgent. I am a representative of Aethel Group and its founders Ricardo Santos Silva and Aba Schubert. Could you please delete the 3 pages. These pages are abusive and should be deleted immediately. Please text me here if you want to discuss this further. Wikipedia does not allow me to include my email. Thank you and best regards Rhead1967 Rhead1967 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhead1967: Wikipedia does not require authorization from the subject of articles, any more than a newspaper would require authorization to report on a person or company, and there is nothing abusive about the articles (aside from the desire of your clients that they not exist). The articles may well be deleted due to a lack of notability (I have not looked at either article and am not now weighing in on the discussion), but your request for suppression as a representative of the company and its principals does not carry any weight in this discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking this over, I think Aethel Mining seems to have enough coverage to warrant a page, but this as the parent company doesn't really have much beyond the potential Chelsea acquisition, and that just as one of the potential buyers. I can't see this as having its own notability. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 18:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aethel Mining Vannostrand1949 (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BoldKeep Bold 85.255.233.208 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 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! 20:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Grace: Jeff Buckley[edit]

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

No sign of notability and WP:RS Behind the moors (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability Puglia1999 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above sources which are enough to demonstrate notability. Brian O'Conner 07:14, 26 March 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! 19:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TaDarius Thomas (wrestler)[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Article has no sources to prove notability. The creator was blocked. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable mentions found in Google News. Sourcing used in the article is one long list, with the oddest formatting I've seen. And the image of the fellow is tagged as a copyvio/lack of author info. All kinds of wrong here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trainwreck of a page. I did find that he had a mixed martial arts career, but it doesn't come close to meeting WP:MMABIO. No evidence of SIGCOV exists. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 03:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puglia1999 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 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! 19:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Gangadhar[edit]

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

paid for spam, 0 independent notability, triedto redirect but was met with resistance. no opposition to redirecting to the company but he isn't notable merely for being part of it. CUPIDICAE💕 17:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Foster (architect)[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. I cannot find anything about this man other than straight-up copies of Wikipedia. Highly suspect that this is a hoax. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 17:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 17:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 17:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 17:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has three sources. I can't go to the library now, but it would be nice if we checked them before declaring the article a hoax. Atchom (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hardly a hoax. Bristol is not my specialist area, but I have access via archive.org to one of the cited sources (Andrew Foyle, Bristol, Pevsner Architectural Guides (2004) ISBN 0-300-10442-1). Therein we find the following:
    • p26: Public buildings of the early 19th century are ... numerous[.] ... among the few local architects ... is James Foster (c. 1748–1823), founder of a very significant 19th-century firm, but of limited abilities himself. Bit harsh!
    • p30: A full paragraph identifying him and his sons as one of three "architectural dynasties in Bristol" who "dominated 18th- and 19th-century architecture".
    • p97: He designed the south porch and upper vestry at St James's Priory.
    • p213: Description of houses designed by him at Clifton Vale.
    • p230: Description of houses designed by him at Park Place.
    • pp285–287: Description of his extensive work at Ashton Court (a mansion).
  • I would expect a decent range of biographical details in Colvin (1997), which I don't have access to. Likewise, Ison (1978) is a book specific to Foster's era, so I would expect there to be plenty of material in there. Might be worthing pinging Wikipedia:WikiProject Bristol, whose members may have access to more resources. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Hassocks5489 plus five minutes on Google Books confirmed my initial opinion. Not only not a hoax, but a decent amount of secondary literature as well. Atchom (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is certainly not a hoax, as only needs looking at the sources already cited in the article to confirm. I think the nominator should withdraw that unfounded personal attack against the article creator. Or does not having anything come up at the top of World Wide Web (founded in 1990) search results for a subject who died about 200 years ago count as a hoax? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume that the nominator is watching this discussion (at least I can't imagine starting a deletion discussion myself and not watching), so Fakescientist8000, how about withdrawing the nomination in the light of what others have found? Remember that books are usually the best place to look for sources about such historical subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen this in the past few days. I was mistaken, although the article probably needs improvement. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Udaya TV. Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika (Kannada TV series)[edit]

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

Per User talk:Star_Mississippi#Draftify (courtesy @Atlantic306:), bringing this here for discussion. It was Ravensfire's and my opinion that this isn't ready for mainspace, however the creator disagrees. While language is no doubt an issue, I cannot find RS based evidence that this remake meets television notability guidelines. I do believe it may eventually, which was why I believed incubation in Draft was a possible solution. Star Mississippi 17:10, 21 March 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! 19:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MyUS (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary DAB. There is one article at Myus about a human settlement and the other "topic" is a trivial mention (a redlink) in a list of mail forwarding companies. MB 16:29, 21 March 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! 19:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seedsman Seeds[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No notability at all. Knud Truelsen (talk) 15:19, 21 March 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! 19:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agroterra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No notability at all. Knud Truelsen (talk) 15:20, 21 March 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. Most of the Keep rationales are simply "it's notable" and I have concerns about some of the SPA issues (two of the users commenting have not been active for some while, on one case three years). However the biggest issue is that the article is simply the version deleted at the previous AfD with a very small section added about discovering a bug - it would not in my opinion have been wrong to actually speedy delete this as G4. When these issues are taken together, this pushes me towards closing this as Delete. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarthak Sharma[edit]

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

Not enough work or links to realize WP:GNG. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Enough mentions in reliable sources to be notable. Clearly meets WP:GNG bechmark. UA3 (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • can it be clarified which sources? To me they all look marketing posts. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the references looks marketing posts to me. There are quite a lot verifiable independent sources for the subject. In my opinion, NDTV India source can be adequate to pass WP:GNG. Angad.uday (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
please see cnbc link too. Same content translated. Very clear they had same source. Why would cnbc copy Ndtv on purpose on this minor event?Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If there are many more independent sources confirming importance and providing sufficient information to support content in an encyclopedia article, then the article can exist. But that is not the case here. Seems too premature. Probably just another attempt for self-popularization. --Engineering Guy (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are significant coverages about him from reliable independent sources. Sources mentioned in the articles are enough to meet notability. Ashish065 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ashish has edited after a year almost. And this is his first edit. This is also first AFD comment. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss the sources, don't just assert that they are sufficient or insufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (ref nums from this version) Refs 1 & 2 have identical opening paragraphs. Refs 3 and 10, while seemingly different from a vocabulary aspect, use an identical structure - covid, biz loss, "we had a chance to meet AutoForSure", quotes from founders, all in that same order. Thus none of these are independent. Ref 4 is an interview as every line is a quote. Refs 8 and 9 in Hindi again share the same structure. Note also that these articles are mostly from Jan 2021. All these along with Ref 5 are actually about the company and mentions of the subject are limited to quotes. Taken together, there is a strong hint of a coordinated marketing campaign by the company. The two remaining articles on bug-bounty cover the subject only briefly, telling us about the schools he attended. Whatever else search engines surface is similarly interviews or brief mentions. Hemantha (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepstruck duplicate vote Comment: NDTV and CNBC doesn’t seem “copy” to me as said by nominee. CNBC was posted before NDTV India, and by the format and details mentioned in NDTV article, they both are entirely different. CNBC clearly discuss interests, past experiences, career life of him, and ends with how Discord exploit was found. Same topic was picked up by author Bikram, but was primarily focused on Discord. Yet did mentions the details and information about the subject which makes both the independent references valid and notable. OneIndia, Navbharat Times, and Zee news are some of the journalist written articles which do talk about the subject and prove notability. Ref 5 (NewsX) seems to be a post for company, but do mention basic details about the subject. If someone is running a company, there will be some articles about promoting the business. If we talk about the subject, article seems neutral and doesn’t sound promotional to me. Someone mentioned about references being posted on same month. As far I can see references are of different months, January, March, July, August, October, January’22. UA3 (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CNBC and NDTV are refs 6 and 7 which I did not say were copies. I said their coverage of the subject was minimal, restricted to his schooling details. The claim that others are journalist written articles doesn't explain why they share sentences or the exact ordering of events. 5, out of the remaining 8 articles, are indeed from Jan 2021 ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). Hemantha (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my 'delete' comment closely once more. Your objections do not appear to be based on anything I've written. Hemantha (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was mentioning user Laptopinmyhands as he believes refs 6 and 7 had the “same source”. As per him, CNBC copied the NDTV article. However, CNBC was the first one to publish this article. I don’t think so user Laptopinmyhands has gone through any references. If you go through his contributions, you will find out user has requested deletion of many different articles in a short period.

Anyways, ref 6 mentions more than just schooling details. You should give it a read again. I’ve gone through all the articles, and the events and details explained are not correlated. Every article talks something different about it. The founder quote seems to be similar in a few articles, a generic one. They look independent from each other to me. However, I’ll go through them once again and edit my comment. Coming to your doubt that the articles could be a coordinated marketing campaign, indeed 5 articles out of 10 seems to be posted in January, dates are different from each other. Usually, marketing campaign articles are posted altogether, on a similar date +/- a day. If so, websites do mention the article being a advertisement/marketing post. Zee News, Amar Ujala, Navbharat Times are posted by journalists, not sure why an author would take up part in a marketing campaign. To me, the article sounds neutral and there is nothing promotional in it. I’m not sure why someone would run a marketing campaign to publish articles with no promotional/advertising intentions. In my opinion, this is just another poor case of nomination. UA3 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. This is not a poor case of nomination. Your logic is flawed and your two times vote of keep is concerning. I read everything.

[10] No journalist credited. Very little information about Sarthak. Not independent. Not significant. [11] No journalist credited. Very little information about Sarthak. Not independent. Not significant. [12] Not about him. Not significant. [13] No journalist credited. Sarthak is mostly talking himself in quotes. Not independent. [14] No journalist credited. Very little information about Sarthak. Not independent. Not significant. [15] I agree that it is one source [16] Headline is about him but the text is not. [17] It might look like a good source. But read the last paragraph. It’s rubbish. Makes no sense. Looks like bad machine translation of some english content. No journalist who is native Hindi will write this. I fail to believe it is independent. [18] No journalist credited. Article doesn’t even make sense. Starts randomly with generic information about pandemic and then mentions some study. Again some cut copy paste from somewhere else

Even if there is a journalist credited, the way content is written, it is very clear that it was influenced. And that’s what is central to an ‘independent source’ from what I read in policy. Just because there is a journalist name, source doesn’t always become independent. This is also important here because there are so many sources with no journalist name, it means, even other sources should be read with caution. This is not a notable person because the sources are not independent. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry, vote will be counted once. There is nothing to be concerned about. I still believe you did not read any references carefully. In your comment, Ref 8 (Zee news) you’ve said, Not about him. Not significant. What do you mean by “Not about him”? The article clearly mentions his name in the headline, I can see his picture in this article. The article content indeed reads information about him and the company. Ref 12 (Navbharat Times) Headline is about him but the text is not. A quick google translation of content can give you a brief idea that the complete article is based on him; text, as well as the headline, is about him. Please go through it again. Possibly you were reading Navbharat's article through phone, for me full content was not visible when visited through the phone. Try visiting this link from a Desktop. Ref 13 (Amar Ujala) It is indeed a good source, if some text appears to be rubbish, and makes no sense to you that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be useful to others. This is your opinion about the reference, and it doesn’t rule out the reliability of the reference. To me, it is a good independent piece of work. Ref 6 (OneIndia) is a journalist written article, there seems to be a glitch in their website where the name is not visible now. I took the Journalist's name from Wikipedia reference and checked his OneIndia’s profile. I did scroll back down to Aug 2021 and found the article under his author profile. I took a screenshot to save your time, do refer [19]. There is enough information mentioned and is independent.
Cut copy paste from where? You have vaguely stated “Not independent. Not significant.” to references without even discussing them and what is wrong. I remember your comment, NDTV article was a minor event and how CNBC was a copy of NDTV India. Once it was proved false, it seems a fair source to you. I still firmly believe this is a poor case of nomination. UA3 (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is a BLP I'm going to re-list it again. I'm unconvinced by the Keep rationales but not quite enough to close it as Delete ... yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Article is basically the same as the previous one deleted (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/pqTWn) and new article does not address the issues brought up at the first AfD (regarding reliability of sources and possible "paid media") Rlink2 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've visited the link and compared it with the previous article. I did notice a change, but a minor improvement. Furthermore, NDTV and CNBC are added to the reference list since then. In my judgement, both the sources are reliable and a notable one. Angad.uday (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the subject is notable. The article just needs to be improved a bit further. Upon assessing references and remarks thoroughly, I personally find sources to be independent and reliable showing subject is notable. Scerpellare (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I have looked through the sources given. While some of them just make a passing mention and company operations, there are several which provide sufficient detail for his notability. I concur with user UA3, sources are reliable. No such text or information which prove sources are paid for. Passes WP:GNG Blakesmith11 (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. Closing admin should note, the AfD discussion is being influenced by multiple WP:SPAs. - Hatchens (talk) 12:13, 31 March 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 14:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ketto[edit]

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

Fails notability self promotion and self made article, all the news are self press release (paid news). @@@XyX talk 13:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There were a few legitimate sources, but the fact that this is the third nomination and there hasn't been more done doesn't portend well for this article meeting a lasting notability threshold. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but let the AfD run so that we have something to point back to when it's created. That said, I have some concerns about the nomination based on an ANI post so we'll see how this shakes out. Star Mississippi 20:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note The article has been tagged for CSD G11 by an admin. @@@XyX talk 21:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. @Deepfriedokra I won't contest it, but if we want to avoid a 4th AfD I think we'll need to salt or let this run. Just my .02. Star Mississippi 21:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ARTSPAM worthy of WP:G11. Does not meet sourcing requirement for notability requirements. Detagged to let this run. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources that are legitimate do not treat the subject in the breadth and depth required for significant coverage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Jéské Couriano for detailed source analysis. Verifies WP:ARTSPAM. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I, for one, use salt sparingly. I think we can do without it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - and I will go into Bastard Helper From Hell mode here to help preclude a 4th AfD; refer to the top table on User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
A Google search (string: ketto) isn't turning much of anything up, either; it's mainly news reports about Ketto being misused, more routine coverage, more press releases, and overall not a whole lot of substantial, non-routine, independent reporting on the company specifically. For these issues, I have to argue in favour of deletion; for the tendency to emulate a phoenix I have to argue in favour of salting the title post-deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jéské above. A little salt might save a return to this later on. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All sources are either self-published, press-release amplification sites, or other sources of marginal utility (i.e. brief mentions in other sources). I don't think this is salt territory yet; there is a chance this could become notable in the future, but this should not be a Wikipedia topic right now. --Jayron32 13:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My call for SALT was to avoid a 4th AfD. The first two were essentially expired PRODs, but I dont think we need to revisit this until/unless it becomes notable. AfC could be viable. Star Mississippi 21:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP, due to they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Also by a before search turns up nothing significantly. Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP. Might add a dash of salt. 🧂 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any that does, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:49, 26 March 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 14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azaan Rustam Shah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. One source present most of the Tv shows and films are unverified @@@XyX talk 13:27, 21 March 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 14:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varanasi City Police Commissionerate[edit]

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

Just closed as a soft delete and redirect was removed, but same issues remain. In recognition that there was socking at that AfD, I'm opening another discussion. Still no evidence there's enough independent, reliable coverage to meet WP:ORG Star Mississippi 13:25, 21 March 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 14:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Republicans[edit]

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

Page without sources and without apparent reason to exist; from a web search, it seems that "Red Republicans" was simply the term with which Marx defined the French Socialists in the 1848 Revolution. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Czello 15:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A discussion on whether or not to redirect / merge instead can happen after this AfD is closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Orgera[edit]

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

Orgera was a non-medaling Olympic Competitor. We lack any significant coverage here, and my search for significant coverage in multiple places showed nothing. Just additional name drops. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 21. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to the sources for his entry on the German wiki, he was also in the fascist volunteer corps in the Spanish Civil War, and was awarded with the (a) Merit Cross. At worst, redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 1936 Summer Olympics, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Italy. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Insufficient WP:BEFORE. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no significant sources added to the article. No one has even put forth one source that is on the level of meeting GNG, let alone the multiple sources that are required.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • For crying out loud, John, you have been here long enough to know that it's the sources that exist that matter, not those currently cited in the article. If you want the sources found by Lugnuts in the German article to be added then you know full well where the edit tag is, so get up off your behind and [expletive deleted] add them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The above comment is clearly abusive. I am tired of people being allowed to verbally abuse me on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not abusive at all, but merely a statement of Wikipedia policy/guidelines, which, for some reason, you have been allowed to get away with ignoring for many years. I will admit that I made one mistake: you can cite sources in a Wikipedia article without even getting up off your behind. The whole point of an open wiki is that if you see something that you want to be done you can do it yourself, rather than look for someone to order to do it for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well said, Phil. If JPL gets harsher responses sometimes, it's usually just a reaction to his behavior.--Darwinek (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously no WP:BEFORE, given the easy accessibility of sources as above. If not kept nevertheless, then redirect as per Lugnuts. Ingratis (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add that both Phil and Ingratis are absolutely right. If this isn't kept, then redirect per Lugnuts. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one has specified which sources in German actually constitute significant coverage that would add towards GNG. No one has cited which specific sources they think meet this requirement. I am not fluent in German, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so I am not just going to move over some sources without understanding htem. The attack above is clearly verbal abuse and needs to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard procedure would be to say X source, which is reliable because of Y reasons, says Z about Orgera. Just saying "the German Wikipedia has sources that indicate such and such" does not infact reach that level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to agree with Johnpacklambert (and I don't do that particularly often). Of the 3 sources on the de.wiki article, [20] doesn't seem to tell me anything, and the other two are offline book sources, so not sure how to tell whether they are significant coverage or not (it appears he may have had a military career and fought in the Spanish Civil War according to the text in de.wiki, but that doesn't confer notability). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The difference between you and John Pack Lambert is that you are prepared to actually look at the sources offered above, but he demands that they should be added to the English Wikipedia article before even taking them into consideration. I agree that the source that you linked is useless for our purposes here (and probably for any other purpose).The first book source in the German article has a link to a PDF copy, from which I can see that much of page 53 is taken up with the Olympic records of Franco Orgera and Ugo Ceccarelli. If you have made up your mind that the subject is notable then this is significant coverage, but if you have made up you mind that he is not then it is not. Either position can be argued, as can usually be done when we are following the highly-subjective GNG. I can't find a copy of the other source but, as it is a daily official bulletin of the Ministry of War, it just looks like confirmation that he received a medal. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect per other users above. - Darwinek (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily meets GNG with the easy accessibility of sources as above. The nominator obviously took a quick look at the article and decided, that rather than spend the required effort of performing WP:BEFORE and chose to waste the time of all the other editors who have looked into this. Please stop abusing us with this misbehavior. Jacona (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to event article. There are some other sources, and I have looked for myself in Italian. But it seems to me that there isn't appropriate SIGCOV in the sources identified from the de.wiki article, and most of the Italian searching throws up lists/databases of all Italian Olympians, which also can only be supplementary. Kingsif (talk) 14:38, 27 March 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. I had originally closed this as a redirect. Following a great discussion on my Talk including those with disparate views, I agree with their input and am re-closing this as no consensus. It could have gone to formal DRV, but we do not need further bureaucracy on this topic. That said, if someone feels strongly it needs a different close, consider this my blessing for it to go to DVR. Star Mississippi 13:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STANLIB[edit]

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

Procedural relisting of this previous AfD. Article was redirected, but consensus at this DRV discussion was that references brought up later in the aforementioned AfD discussion were not fully considered. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.
  • Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability or "coverage"....
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
An analysis of the references introduced at the last AfD but not considered:
  • This from IOL is entirely based on their 2021 interim-results announcement. Therefore has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
  • This reference is an advertorial with no attributed journalist and clearly is within the topic company's echo chamber with substantial amounts of information provided by the company and their executives. It was originally published in the "Personal Finance" magazine but I am unable to locate a copy. Fails ORGIND
  • This reference is entirely based on a company announcement and contains identical text to that found in other articles from other newspapers such as The Weekly Argus, Saturday Star and The Independent on Saturday.
  • This reference is entirely based on an announcement by the company that its rules on money market unit trusts are changing, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This reference refers to Bloomberg and is also entirely based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This reference and this related reference are also based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This reference gives it away in the heading and is entirely based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This from News24 relies entirely on quotes from a company exec, contains no identifiable "Independent Content", fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the topic company, many of the articles had no attributable journalist which are red flags but even leaving that aside, the articles are just "coverage" based on company announcements and PR. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why The Weekly Argus, Saturday Star and The Independent on Saturday all have the same text is that they belong to the same media group (Independent Newspapers). Stanlib has had sustained coverage over many years from numerous sources. Park3r (talk) (And it's Weekend Argus, not Weekly Argus) Park3r (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (again). Stanlib meets the WP:GNG and probably meets WP:CORP. Lots of South African sources are disappearing behind paywalls, but it has gotten sustained coverage over 20 years from multiple sources, and numerous WP:RS have covered it, indicating its importance.
    • Here is a 2005 article by Bloomberg that critically analyses Stablib's performance https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/brits-takes-over-after-miller-leaves-stanlib-740381 Alan Miller left the job last month as Stanlib slumped to eighth position from third a year ago in a survey by Plexus Research & Surveys on the returns posted by South African unit trusts over the five years to June. "Miller has declined to give a reason for his departure." (indicating that this is more than a press release and that a journalist sought out the reason for the departure.
    • [21] After a decade of under-performing, the benchmark in its equity funds – the most prominent asset class among investors in South Africa – Stanlib struggled to keep clients, let alone attract large values of new investments. and: He admits that Stanlib has not mastered stock selection in South African equities. The firm is now bringing in a new head of equity research, Andrew Cuff, who will be starting with the firm on March 2 to help it on that front. Again, these are indications that the source is journalistic, not merely regurgitating a press release. A company would not, in a press release "admit" that they are struggling with stock selection, unless they were asked.
    • [22] Questioned on why it appeared that the same players always seemed to be involved in the big empowerment deals, Macozoma said it was important for Safika to ensure it used its resources to the best of its ability and included as many other people as possible in the deal. Again an indication of independent journalistic coverage, as well as notability, since a journalist asked a critical question about company policy.
    • [23] Here's an article where Stanlib is mentioned in passing. The reason why this passing one line mention is significant is that Stanlib is that it demonstrates that Stanlib is a known and large player in South Africa that doesn't need a preeamble
    • [24]. This was dismissed above as being based on a company press release, but it actually has critical coverage from a third party that the journalist who wrote the article sought out, rather than swallowing the company line: Ryk de Klerk, an investment analyst and co-founder of the PlexCrown Fund Ratings, says it makes sense for an asset 
manager to offer investors fewer funds with clearly defined investment objectives and mandates. This also benefits the manager, because having too many funds creates the risk that less-popular funds will be “neglected”. De Klerk says the reduction in the number of funds will not automatically result in Stanlib improving its position in the PlexCrown Fund Ratings. Asset managers with a large range of funds, such as Coronation and Nedgroup Investments, have done well in the ratings. Park3r (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of NCORP guidelines and SIRS in particular. Articles which obviously and clearly rely on information provided by the company, interviews, announcements, whatever, may well contain single sentences which may be plucked out, examined in isolation, and declared as "Independent Content" - but that is perverse and those sentences are not clearly attributable to a source unconnected with the company as the journalist is merely rephrasing or summarising. Similarly, saying that a journalist asked a question therefore the response is "Independent Content" is simply wishful thinking. Or saying that because the article contains negative information therefore must qualify is another example of wishful thinking. There shouldn't be a need to comb through articles plucking a sentence here and a sentence there and trying to stitch together something that meets the criteria, in my experience articles/references that meet the criteria are clear and obvious. HighKing++ 12:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You seem to have moved the goalposts on this. You claimed that there was no independent editorial content in the sources. I found it, but now it’s not adequate. Ultimately though, there has been a ton of content on Stanlib in the South African financial press. I searched Moneyweb, which is one of the top financial sites and found 1300 mentions of Stanlib with articles having bylines. [25] Unfortunately Moneyweb has recently been paywalled, but there is probably the same amount of content on other financial sites. They’re a large and well-known player in the SA asset management space. UPDATE: there are a large number of mentions on News24/Fin24 as well [26] update 2: here’s a critical article about them overcharging investors and being forced to pay them back. [27] [28] Here’s a 2008 article that excoriates them for poor performance [29] 2019 article about performance from Business Day [30] Another one about an attempt to deal with poor performance from 2010 [31] Here’s another news article about a dispute with investors [32] 2016 article criticising them for closing their technology fund (you can bypass the Moneyweb paywall with "view source": [33] Park3r (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Take the Bloomberg reference where you extract a quote beginning with "Alan Miller left the job last month" as an example of "Independent Content". The entire article is based on statements made by the topic company and what appears to be an interview with George Brits with a headline "Brits takes over after Miller leaves Stanlib" and that is why I said it fails ORGIND for not having in-depth information (CORPDEPTH) that resulted from "Independent Content". Now if you want to select individual sentences from such an article and hold them up as "Independent Content", fine, but you are not left with anything that even faintly resembles something that would meet CORPDEPTH. All of the in-depth information has been provided by the company or by the exec. So, saying that the goalposts were moved is not true - they're the same goalposts. Moving on ... as you know, the volume of "mentions" doesn't matter, we need two (or more) individual references. You say they're a large and well-known company - great - but maybe that's because they've a very active PR dept that put out lots of information that is repeated? Also, articles that comment on funds' performance is not the same as an article on the company itself - the topic is the company, not the fund. The new references you've provided are just more of the same, based on announcements. HighKing++ 11:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response : For the new references, I deliberately chose articles where STANLIB was the subject of the article, that were critical of the company, in WP:RS, with many carrying the bylines of credible financial journalists, over decades, demonstrating that the subject meets WP:GNG at least. They are not "based on announcements", as no company would announce that it overcharged investors [34][35] or was accused of poor investment decisions [36]. Your argument "Also, articles that comment on funds' performance is not the same as an article on the company itself" isn't particularly compelling, since the one article criticises multiple STANLIB funds and ends with the statement Investors currently holding unit trusts may want to scrutinise the actions of their fund managers a little more closely as they weigh up where your money is safest. [37] - that is a clear criticism of the entire company. Regardless, the primary purpose of an asset manager is fund performance, most coverage about them would be about that. You may well be right about the size of their PR department (I don't know), but that would just be a secondary indicator of the size of the organisation. There are a big number of mentions across multiple WP:RS (and that's taking paywalls into account, without paywalls, I'm sure there will be even more: Financial Mail, Business Day, Business Times have all largely vanished from Google). Despite this loss of sources, there is still critical third party coverage that plainly meets WP:SIRS spanning multiple decades. I'm not going to WP:BLUDGEON this AfD, and I actually don't have anything invested in STANLIB (as an editor, or financially) but I do think this article represents an interesting case of whether WP:WORLDVIEW still holds. There has been a dearth of South African editors participating in these AFDs (and for some reason, it seems, on Wikipedia in general in recent times), and it's hard (and getting harder because SA journalism is in crisis, and also disappearing from the web) for people in other countries to evaluate sources without being able to weigh their credibility. Park3r (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm finding the large number of sources, including some that are fairly negative (and so unlikely to be PR), enough to go with keep. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Hobit, which sources? Please provide links. HighKing++ 12:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that would have been helpful, sorry. [38] is the main one I was thinking of. But there were a few others. I'll look more later. Hobit (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey thanks, doesn't work for me as meeting the criteria for notability, appears to me that all the info comes from company sources.... "have been disclosed by the company's parent" (Libterty) ... "The multinational says" ... "Liberty said" ... "A source familiar with the transaction said" ... "Clients were notified" ... "Liberty said" ... etc. HighKing++ 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd just like to point out that "the source familiar with the transaction" was probably speaking without authorisation, otherwise they'd have been quoted as a "spokesman", and the information they were sharing was negative (that people were moving to other fund managers). Whistleblowers and leakers quoted in third-party sources can't be viewed as PR. The article also talks about "seeking to cut losses": again, that's not something a company would disclose in a PR piece. This Kenyan article's tone and its headline are indeed negative towards Stanlib ("Clients pull Sh75bn from Stanlib on ICEA buyout"). Park3r (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Anonymous sources are not reliable sources so that would fail WP:RS. Being a "negative" article has nothing to do with whether a reference meets the criteria or not. Once you remove all of the quotes (both from Liberty and anonymous), what's left that you say meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH??? A couple of sentences at best, and those sentences still aren't *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the company and do not provide in-depth information about the company. What am I missing? Which parts of that article are you claiming meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH? HighKing++ 13:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journalists use anonymous sources all the time. An anonymous quote by a connected party in a WP:RS does not render that source non-reliable, just because the source is not identified in the article. If that were the case, large swathes of acclaimed modern journalism would be rendered “non-reliable”. Park3r (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not journalists and this is an encyclopedia so, no, we certainly don't ever rely on anonymous sources and which you might use an anonymous source to establish a fact or some information within an article (which if controversial will almost certainly be challenged and removed) we have a higher standard when it comes to establishing notability and anonymous sources are never going to meet our criteria in that regard. HighKing++ 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not relying on the contents of the source to make factual claims about STANLIB in this AFD, that’s something that needs to be dealt with if the source is used in an article. The purpose of the AFD is to establish notability. The Kenyan link shared by Hobit is another example of a critical article that met the parameters of journalism (rather than PR), in addition to the other critical coverage I shared from South African financial websites/papers.Park3r (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the purpose of the AfD is to establish notability - and because the subject is a company/organization, those criteria can be found in NCORP. I've asked that Hobit (or anyone) identify which parts of the article they linked to contains information which does not originate from connected sources and therefore meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND criteria in particular. Notably, there's been no response to that request.
You earlier argued different points - for example articles that were critical of the company should establish notability. Now you're arguing that an article that "meets the parameters of journalism" should establish notability. I disagree and your points are not supported by any of our guidelines. To determine whether a reference meets NCORP criteria we can apply a simple test to the content. First, simply remove from each article being examined all of the information not *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the subject and look at what's left. Does what's left meet CORPDEPTH? I've applied this test to all of the sources and in my view, the content that remains is scant or irrelevant to the subject and therefore not a single reference has enough content remaining that meets CORPDEPTH. If you disagree, please use Hobit's references as a starting point and let me know which paragraphs/sentences remain that together provides Deep or significant coverage such as an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis of the subject as per CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 16:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reposting sources from later in the conversation to support my previous keep vote, because sources added later on in the conversation were missed in the last AFD. STANLIB meets the WP:GNG because of significant critical coverage in reliable sources by South African financial journalists in both newspapers and financial news websites, that are independent of the subject and meet the definition of WP:RS. This coverage has spanned a period of decades. Some examples: [39] (view source to bypass paywall). [40] [41] [42][43]. There are numerous other sources discussed above, including one from a Kenyan financial website, added by another editor. I have chosen a small subset here that are overtly critical of the company to remove any doubt that they are PR. These sources also appear to meet WP:SIRS. STANLIB was also covered by a 34 page book(let) [44] published by the Financial Mail in 2003 by financial journalist Stephen Cranston. Unfortunately the book contents is not available, but the author is on Twitter and can be contacted, if someone is so inclined. Park3r (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is notable that over a week ago you said you weren't going to WP:BLUDGEON the process and ever since then you've kept responding to every comment but notably failing to provide any indication that (a) you understand NCORP criteria for establishing notability; and (b) that particular references meet NCORP criteria. It is also notable that your latest comment says "meets the WP:GNG because of significant critical coverage in reliable sources" without explaining why you are relying on GNG rather than NCORP (especially given the WP:SNG section of GNG). You say that "these sources also appear to meet WP:SIRS" but it is notable that previously you were requested to show how one reference (the Kenyan website one) meets the CORPDEPTH/ORGIND parts of NCORP (also referenced in SIRS) but you have chosen to ignore that request. It is notable that you float a mention from Google Book without any indication that it meets the criteria for establishing notability - but you expect others to do the heavy lifting to either verify or refute the source. Peppering an AfD with multiple references but then ignoring or not following up on requests to show why those references meet NCORP criteria won't get far. HighKing++ 14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It meets WP:GNG and NCORP. As for WP:BLUDGEON, I was hesitant to post the references again, but I was also mindful that the previous AFD was incorrectly closed because editors missed references prior to it being relisted. The book was published by Financial Mail, which is indicative of notability, since the Financial Mail is another highly regarded WP:RS, however I mentioned it in passing, more for the benefit of editors who wished to explore it as an additional source, and it can certainly be disregarded. I deliberately excluded a link the Kenyan financial website that was added by another editor from the list of links, because you objected to it. The critical sources I posted from News24, Moneyweb and Business Day should be sufficient.([45] (view source to bypass paywall). [46] [47] [48][49]) Each of these meets the NCORP criteria of "Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary". They also meet the GNG criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Let's allow other editors a chance to comment. Park3r (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm happy for others to comment but I wish to highlight the fact that you have continually ignored all requests to show how any individual reference you've posted meets NCORP. You've said (again) that your four references pass NCORP because they are "Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary". A nice summary of NCORP but the devil is in the details. I say that none meet NCORP. For example, this "Stanlib funds struggle" article comments on data from equinox.co.za which says that 5 of the 10 worst performing units are managed by Stanlib. Can you please point to any particular paragraph in that entire article that meets CORPDEPTH? The article discusses their products but not the company itself - the topic of this article is the company and to meet the criteria for notability, we require *significant coverage* of the *company itself* as it plainly says in the guideline sub-heading. If you're gonna push references and tell people they meet NCORP then you're going to have to show how and why they meet the guidelines. All you've done is repeat the same vague ideas about meeting GNG and NCORP and avoided and requests for you justify your assertions. But you can be sure than unlike the sources that were purportedly missed in the previous AfD, these ones have not been missed and also appear to fail NCORP. HighKing++ 22:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT: Fin24/News24 (Naspers), Moneyweb, Business Day are all well known, long-established sources. The small subset of the (thousands of) articles that mention STANLIB I chose were negative: they discussed poor performance, overcharging and attempts to remedy these issues. There is no requirement to use negative sources, but I chose those to eliminate any whiff of PR, based on your previous concerns. SIGNIFICANT: all the articles in these reliable sources are exclusively about STANLIB and span a long period of time, they are not passing mentions, and a result of the company's inherent notability. SECONDARY: these sources are secondary: they involve independent synthesis of facts.Park3r (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Response You're still dancing around but not meaningfully engaging with the simple request above. A "negative" reference has no additional weight on whether it meets the criteria for establishing notability. Nobody has argued about WP:RS. Significant doesn't mean "news" where the "news" is simply regurgitating announcements and PR regardless on your opinions on negative reporting. There is nothing in those references that amounts to CORPDEPTH (once you remove the parts that fail ORGIND) and it is notable that you've still not responded to my reasonable and simple request to identify any paragraphs that meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. I'm not going to engage further on this, I think we've exhausted this topic especially if you're unable to provide a meaningful answer. HighKing++ 11:20, 24 March 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. Given that nearly every possible option has been suggested, I can't see that this can be closed as much else but No Consensus. A Merge or Move discussion, of course, does not need AfD for it to happen. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic percussion instrument[edit]

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

Melodic and Pitched percussion are the same thing. Not much use for having two articles that discuss the same thing. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have yourself all of the tools that are needed for dealing with duplicate articles, you know. An administrator deletion tool does not enter into it at any stage. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did consider a deletion by redirect, but felt it may have been too controversial. A deletion discussion has the benefit of imput from others, too. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • A deletion discussion is for the application of the deletion tool, which a redirect is not. Using the editing tool is not deletion. Don't fall into the error of thinking that redirects are deletions. They most definitely are not. Something that I can enact with the editing tool, you can revert; something that I or another administrator can enact with the deletion tool, you cannot. It's not the same thing at all. And for soliciting third opinions, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments seems to be active and indeed discussing this sort of thing. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        See WP:ATD-R. Articles for deletion also has the benefit of being a bit more active. Obviously, a deletion and a redirect are not the same thing, but I simply knew someone would oppose it either way, so starting a discussion seemed to be better than being WP:BOLD. Now please actually comment on the actual article rather than continuing about this trivial matter. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That sounds very like forum shopping to me, although it's not quite the same thing. I sympathise, some of my proposals have drawn little interest over the years too. But still not a good idea IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It'a far from forum shopping as this is the only place the proposal is listed, and Wikipedia:ATD-R defines AFD as one of the suitable venues for discussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timpani are classified as pitched percussion, but they aren't melodic until you have a set of timpani. The same goes for toms, cymbals, wooden blocks, etc. On the other hand, a xylophone is classified as pitched and melodic percussion. Opus88888 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any sources directly delineating "pitched" versus "melodic" percussion, because right now, this just seems like a bit of WP:OR about your preferences in organology. And as for a singular timpano drum not being melodic, one of my warm-ups consists of playing simple tunes (e.g., Twinkle Little Star) on one drum. A single tom can have its heads pressed in to raise pitch. Heck, even non-pitched percussion instruments can be melodic (e.g., temple blocks, marching tenor drums, drumset, etc.) when used correctly. Sure there may be some percussion instruments with one note and some with multiple, but is it a widely used term that needs an article (or even mentioned on the pitched percussion page)? Why? I Ask (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many modern tympani have a pedal to change the pitch, so you could play a melody on one and I have seen it done. But yes, in the orchestra it is usual to have a set, not just one... the only time I can recall having seen just one used in professional music was in the drum kit of Jon Bonham and I am not convinced that it was there for any reason other than to look impressive! And because he could. Tympani are interesting in that they form one of the three divisions of the percussion section of a symphony orchestra, and are normally played by the Principal Percussionist despite being in the opinion of many percussionists one of the easier instruments in the section. But conductors and composers don't seem to agree. Andrewa (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and have a formal discussion on (re-)merging with Pitched percussion. This has been a long and difficult story, and will continue, because the terminology has been in a state of flux for many years, and we percussionists tend to be a bit volatile by nature (although the best of us do make good listeners)... See the edit history of drum kit. But this is a common enough term that deleting it would be, to be blunt and perhaps percussive, ridiculous. I can't find any definitive discussion on the various merges and un-merges of this and related articles, happy to be proven wrong on this, but if not it's about time we had one. Andrewa (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The term melodic percussion is sometimes used, but I can't find any sources using it as this article does (a pitched percussion instrument with multiple notes). That's where my issue lies. Most sources simply use it as a synonym for tuned/pitched percussion, in which case it should be merged and simply noted as a synonym. And as I said above, it seems to be a bit of synthesis; it may not be entirely wrong, but no sources define melodic percussion as such. (I think looking at the mallet percussion and keyboard percussion pages would be good for the future too.) Why? I Ask (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you perhaps limited your search for sources to the existing article references? I get more than half a million ghits for "melodic percussion" -Wikipedia and the first few pages all look relevant. The article does need work. That's not a valid reason for deletion. Agree that those other articles should be looked at too. But melodic percussion, tuned percussion, untuned percussion, pitched percussion, unpitched percussion, keyboard percussion, mallet percussion, auxilary percussion and probably many other terms that don't come to mind are all topics worthy of an entry in the article namespace, either as an article or a redirect to an article or a section of an article. Deletion is not the right course of action for any of them, or for this article either. Melodic percussion redirects here, perhaps it should be the other way around. That's another discussion needed! Andrewa (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying melodic percussion isn't a term. The issue is the way it's defined in this article, and thus the article as a whole. This article seems to think that melodic percussion is a subset of pitched percussion, when really no such definition exists (at least not by any sources I've seen). Tuned percussion, pitched percussion, and melodic percussion are all terms for the same thing; melodic percussion isn't its own different term. Just because this is an entry at AFD does not mean we can not simply choose to make it a redirect; I'd be perfectly content with this page being blanked and redirected to pitched percussion where it is simply listed as a synonym. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A chime bar and a triangle are both examples of pitched percussion that is not melodic. A snare drum is neither pitched nor melodic, but I can (and have) set up a row of them to play a simple tune. One day I will get around to doing a youtube on the subject. So it's partly a matter of convention, and the convention is changing.
    But I am not convinced that we should even try to conclude that discussion here. The important thing here is, we should look at some of the alternatives to deletion to address your valid concern, not deletion. Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've mentioned, a redirect would suit my fancy. And as for the convention, as logical as it may be (I agree to some extent), it is just not something referenced in any sources. The way the article defines and differentiates melodic percussion leads me to believe that WP:NOTESSAY would apply here. Sure, there are changing conventions, but where are your sources for them? Why? I Ask (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were proposing that my view of this convention should be included in the article namespace, I would certainly need sources (and I'd be grateful for them). But I mention it here only for the purposes of this discussion, to explain some of the controversy in the world of percussion. Frankly, everything they say about we drummers is true... and I referred to the chronic instability, most of it good faith editing not deliberate vandalism, of the drum kit article as evidence if this. The widely-believed claims of many cymbal makers to have secret alloys more than a hundred years after these were made a fiction by materials science is another case in point. See my other-wiki essays starting perhaps with nothing could be dumber for more on this.
    The instability of this article, with undiscussed merges and splits, is a result of this. That's what makes it relevant here. And this discussion will hopefully lead, indirectly, to some stability, if you and other contributors here will stay the course and contribute to this further discussion.
    But the main purpose of the discussion here, and of my posts to it, is simply to decide whether it would improve Wikipedia to delete this article and its history, losing content in the process.
    As that has nothing to recommend it, I suggest you stop raising side issues and withdraw the nomination. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like I have to keep clarifying that I would not be opposed to simply making this page a redirect, preserving the page's history in the process. (AFD can be used for that process, from what I know.) Furthermore, I actively think this article may even be potentially damaging to Wikipedia and for percussion academia as a whole. By directly defining melodic percussion as something it may not be, viewers may get the wrong perceptions (especially considering that the definition isn't supported by any sources). Why? I Ask (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because you are ignoring the point. You have raised a valid and complex concern (and one that I'd very much like some help in addressing) but in the wrong forum. Simple as that. Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move it's a list article, rename to 'List of pitched percussion instruments' Acousmana 13:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and have a formal discussion on the subject.
Searching for "melodic percussion" musicology, and "melodic percussion" percussive arts, various results are obtained. --Opus88888 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd read above, you'd see that I note that melodic percussion is a real term. However, no where is it defined as the way the article presents; it is only used as a synonym for more common terms. That's my issue with the article. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then it sounds like a move and/or rescope request rather than deletion. You yourself have suggested that merge and redirect might be a better solution than deletion. So again, you are simply in the wrong place. We all make mistakes. Your help in improving the several affected articles would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a merge is worthy, because there's nothing worth to merge. Only a a redirect and a cleanup of the target page is needed. The latter, a redirect discussion, can fall under the scope of AFD per WP:ATD-R. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the article history? Yes, there are many alternatives to deletion. And my point all along has just been, deletion is not the best way to improve Wikipedia in this case. The article and related articles have a complex history. If we delete this one, we also lose the attribution of text that has ended up elsewhere. Let us improve the articles. That's what is needed. Andrewa (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I Ask: You mentioned that "Melodic and Pitched percussion are the same thing", but they are different. Here is an example of two pitched instruments, one is non-melodic, the other is melodic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpl28We0p24 --Opus88888 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need examples; I need sources. I understand what the article is trying to convey (that some instruments can only play one pitch while others can play multiple), but I'm worried that this is simply WP:OR. No sources define melodic percussion as such, so this remains at best someone's own classification. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Melodic percussion instruments are not primarily used to create rhythmic structures, but melodies." Melodische Schlaginstrumente.[50] --Opus88888 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source still doesn't differentiate it from pitched/tuned percussion, just that melodic is different from non-pitched. I'm talking about sources that clearly delineate the two. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Melodic percussion is a combination of a knowledge of the piano keyboard and the technique used on the timpani." [51] --Opus88888 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 21 March 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samar Alsaggaf[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage on which to build a Wikipedia article. The subject does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @JAnnora2 and @Gorebath. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English language sources for her notability are quite lacking. However, she is, notably, the first female anatomist in Saudi Arabia, and a prolific author. (Arabic sources are not lacking in support of her notability). With women underrepresented, perhaps keep. JAnnora2 (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the Arabic sources supporting her notability? Sources don't have to be in English to contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] Gorebath (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you substantiate that these are reliable sources? If they are, do these provide substantive coverage of the subject? Per a Google translation, the alkhaleej.ae source mentions her once off-hand in a list of people. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All these sources provide WP:N and are eligible as per WP:RS. There is a lot more sources in Arabic, this is not an exhaustive list. Gorebath (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The sources do indicate she has received substantial attention in Arab media, although it's still unclear how much of it is RS/fully independent. JoelleJay (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first female scientist in the country, or the first to get a professorship, would probably be notable. The first to do this in a particular scientific specialty is not. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft to provide an opportunity for further sources to be discovered or developed. BD2412 T 02:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the fact that she held the position of a director of a medical Saudi cultural diplomatic mission to the United States in Washington D.C. is notable enough (which, in combination with being the first female anatomist in Saudi, is what's she's mainly known for) Gorebath (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those is a criterion for NPROF or GNG. I think she solidly fails NPROF (unless a case can be made for C7), but am on the fence about GNG -- we need more independent RS going into depth on her for this. JoelleJay (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I am on the fence. It would seem that Dr. Samar Al-Saqqaf (Dr. Samar bint Muhammad Omar Al-Saqqaf?) being the "first female anatomist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" would be notable. However, using a "Linkedin Page" (two times) directs this to be a resume (What Wikipedia is not). Add that basic biographical information such as date of birth and family life is absent indicates a lack of reliable sources writing about her. Review of sources provided above: This source (The digital library in space) seems to be more about Twitter with passing mention of: "...and knowledge fields from around the world, such as the world The famous Egyptian Professor Farouk Al-Baz, and Dr. Samar Al-Saqqaf, the mother of Saudi scholarship students, in addition to a group of the first Emiratis in several fields." While acceptable as content sourcing, this does not necessarily contribute to notability. This source (Manhom.com through Google translate) shows a very impressive resume which should be far better than Linkedin. This source (The story of the mother of scholarship students, Samar Al-Saqqaf) has far too many "peacock terms", that can be seen as persuasive writing or subjective proclamations. This source corroborates the subject received an Honorary Doctorate which is still is just resume facts.
Surely someone more objective (independent) has written about this subject, that would include her credentials, as well as biographical information that would follow policies and guidelines. Notability has been questioned since 2014 so the proof will be to those wanting inclusion (add to the article) and remove doubts (weak keep: "although it's still unclear how much of it is RS/fully independent") of any that just !vote on a number of sources added. This would land me on the "Keep per WP:HEY." side instead of "Delete" per comments. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more sources and citations, however a couple of users disagree with expanding particularly on her actual role and job description as a director of Medical and Health Science Programs at the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission to the United States in Washington, hence I will not attempt to expand any further and risk engaging in an edit warring. Gorebath (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last relist period has produced constructive discussions, going to try one more time to see if we can find a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per JoelleJay and WP:NPROF#1 (e) For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include [...] honorary degrees, (Hartford Courant, 2013). Beccaynr (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Mainly because I have no idea how much coverage is in the sources in Arabic. The English sources indicate that she held important positions. There are also a few articles in G-Scholar that appear to have her name on them, but again I'm not sure if there can be ambiguity in the various name forms. Someone with Arabic language skills could possibly figure out which ones are her and add them to the article. Lamona (talk) 03:13, 24 March 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 12:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Piedmont[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only database sources are provided for the article, nothing that shows subject passes GNG. Search results show some coverage, but not enough to satisfy GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:42, 21 March 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) 08:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Looprevil Press[edit]

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

Non-notable Darrelljon (talk) 10:35, 21 March 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. There may be a valid discussion to be had about merging or redirecting the Gwen Tennyson page, but this is not the place for that discussion. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Tennyson[edit]

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

There has been an edit war about whether this page should be an article or a redirect, so I'm bringing here to settle it. I am neutral on the matter. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To clarify for everyone, this discussion is meant to cover both the articles on Gwen and Ben. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) I take a very dim view of IP addresses edit warring to make something a redirect, and 2) The Google Scholar and Google News links show sufficient coverage for the character and the actresses who have played her. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to have significant coverage including scholarship such as [58] that describes her as "prominent female character". Pikavoom Talk 09:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I, too, see enough coverage in secondary sources to fullfill WP:GNG. The current state of the article is not the decisive critereon. Daranios (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of completeness, spelling out some Google hits: This paper has a section and a bit more about the character, this book has some sentences of description and commentary. Daranios (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned secondary sources in my opinion establish the notability for Gwen Tennyson. Just to be clear about Ben Tennyson, too: The Achilles Effect discusses him just like it discusses Gwen; in addition, this paper discusses both, too, so I think Ben is also notable. Daranios (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current article is 100% plot summary and fancruft, there is no reception and creation and design section is based on passing mentions. No sources that contain SIGCOV have been presented (the link by Pkvavoom is broken for me, and Jclemens claim of WP:GOOGLEHITS is not helpful). IF there are good sources, please link them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Would that work for you instead of the link by Pikavoom? Daranios (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Yes, thank you. Reading... done. She has a one-sentence analysis, that's not enough for WP:SIGCOV so I stand by my view that we don't need a stand-alone article for her (assuming this is the best source we've found?), but I'd be fine with that analysis being paraphrased in the article about the series. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect restore redirect with a prohibition on recreating. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage about non-in-universe aspects of the character to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles on a procedural basis. This is a poorly constructed AfD since the nominator is not actually arguing for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy, and this is reinforced by the fact that other editors in this discussion have identified reliable sources not yet cited in the articles which provide coverage. This should have been an advertised merge discussion on the main Ben10 talk page as to whether each of the character articles should remain as standalone pages in mainspace, not an AfD. Seconding Jclemens's stance that we should not pay any heed to IP addresses edit warring about alleged quality issues. Haleth (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While you are right that the nom failed with their op, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Other valid points have been raised, no need to waste others time and ignore them. I'd however support WP:TROUTing the op and hope they'll use better rationale for their nominations in the future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, this AfD is a waste of time, and valid points have been raised by other editors, almost all of which...support keeping both articles in mainspace, but with different rationales compared to mine. The only valid dissenting opinion I could see was Onel5969's view that it should be redirected on the grounds that there is no significant coverage and thus WP:GNG is not met. But, there appears to be no consensus supporting that position based on the evidence presented so far at the time of writing, either. Haleth (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Ben 10 characters for now, article has no real-world context to show why it would be notable. If that can be found I have no opposition against recreation, but it's pretty much Wikia material as of this AfD, though it's a valid search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated here, Gwen Tennyson and Ben Tennyson.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, references found seem fine. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there is the general notability maintenance template on both, both are characters in a relatively notable show. Additionally, Ben 10 is the main character, so I think their article is notable enough. Gwen? Also notable IMO. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 23:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Ben Tennyson meets the notability guidelines and has long-term significance. I’m neutral on Gwen Tennyson. Sahaib (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as out of scope for AFD, nothing proposed to be deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 29 March 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) 08:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Edde Brothers[edit]

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

Music video directors are rarely notable. These two are no exception. The sourcing is terrible: notability by association doesn't do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 21 March 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) 08:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asura (fiction)[edit]

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

Indiscriminate listcruft that was almost entirely unreferenced upon its original creation. Fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as an unnecessary pop culture list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:27, 21 March 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. Per improvements made and sources identified. Star Mississippi 00:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Watkins[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE due to being sourced only to databases, and fails WP:GNG - all we know about him is his name, his date and place of birth and death, and the fact that he competed as part of a team of 45 gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, coming last. BilledMammal (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:21, 21 March 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 Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enos Walton[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE due to being sourced only to a database, and does not meet WP:GNG - he competed as part of a team of 45 gymnasts, coming last. BilledMammal (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 21 March 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 Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 09:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Preti[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE, due to be sourced only to databases, and fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage - all we know about him is that he competed in the team gymnastics event of the 1908 Olympics, his name, and where and when he was born. BilledMammal (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:49, 21 March 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 Karabakh Khanate#Rulers. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Karabakh khans[edit]

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

WP:CFORK of Karabakh Khanate (incl. Karabakh Khanate#Rulers). As there were only 4 khans in the khanate's rather short-lived existence, the article consists of only 4 "entries". - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:48, 21 March 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. per input from uninvolved editors, Manfio does not meet current guidelines. Should those guidelines be updated, I'm happy to restore this at the time. Star Mississippi 14:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raush Manfio[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails NMMA for not having at least 3 top tier promotion fights and also subject also fails GNG for the fight info is merely routine report. (Note: Creator of the article is a MMA reporter which might have a COI with the subject). Cassiopeia talk 23:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Fighters League is a top tier American promotion, broadcast on ESPN. Manfio has four bouts in this promotion, and it the current lightweight champion. Copperheart0718 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Professional Fighters League (PFL) is not considered a top tier MMA promotion in Wikipedia. Top tier MMA promotion in Wikipedia are UFC, Bellator (2009-2015 and 2022 onward) and Invicta (women). For a promotion to considered a top tier promotion, the promotion needs to have at least 6 fighters who are ranked world top ten under Sherdog/Fight Matrix ranking system for consistently for at least one year. Cassiopeia talk 00:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Maybe the NMMA standard needs to be updated, in that case. Full disclosure: my occupation is Senior Editor at Sherdog. Any list of top-tier promotions that includes Invicta Fighting Championships should also include Professional Fighters League and ONE Championship at the very least, and possibly several more promotions including KSW, M-1, Rizin Fighting Federation, and Absolute Championship Akhmat. While PFL does not currently have six Top 10 fighters in the Sherdog rankings, neither does Invicta, and has not in quite some time. (Incidentally, why Top 10? Sherdog's rankings go to 15, and Fightmatrix's rankings go for as far as you care to keep scrolling.) Invicta has three or four Top 10 fighters, all of them in a single weight class (atomweight). ONE Championship might have more Top 10 fighters than Invicta if not for their peculiar weight/hydration system that makes ranking their fighters a complicated process, but that shouldn't reflect on the noteworthiness of the fighters themselves. Wouldn't it make more sense to treat these on a case-by-case basis? For example, at a glance, half of KSW's current or still-active former champions have Wikipedia articles, none of which seem to be flagged for deletion. Same for ONE Championship. That's as it should be, and similarly, prominent fighters from PFL — certainly champions such as Manfio — are much, much more noteworthy than the dozens of UFC and Bellator undercard fighters who happen to meet the "three fights" standard. User:Saint_Invective — Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey! I am in agreement with you, the Invicta induction was put together many years ago back when Invicta was bigger deal. Personally I don't see it as top tier as back then, especially when they started running less and less shows. I was actually in favor in having a second tier where if you become champ off a second tier promotion, you are eligible. Promotions like KSW, Rizin, ACA, PFL, etc would fall into that category, but the issue arrises in what criteria you would need to be in that category. Maybe 2-Minimum for top tier top 10 (15) fighters, be a possibility. Bellator is actually quite a new addition, in the last year, since they also used to be in the same category as the other promotions. The criteria rules have changed, as it used to be just three UFC fights, which meant guys like Jiri (even tho he was top 5 in the UFC), Amosov, etc weren't eligible even tho we all know they were top fighters.
    In regards to your rankings on Sherdog, if I can add some suggestion, it would be helpful to list the guys from 11-15 with numbers next to their names or something to indicate that they are actually in the rankings. I didn't know they were actually ranked since I thought there were just "On the brink off being ranked"
    But ya I think three proposals on the main project page would be 1. Dropping Invicta to second tier 2. Creating a Second tier (ala X-Minimum for top tier Amount of fighters) 3. Increasing the rankings criteria for top 15 for both Fight matrix and Sherdog.HeinzMaster (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all for having PFL and ONE as top tier promotions, but as it stands with current policy WP:MMABIO is clearly failed. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 22:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree with the policy. PFL is a top-tier American promotion, after UFC and Bellator. The policy appears to be outdated and too limited. Beyond being the current PFL champion, this particular fighter has participated on "The Ultimate Fighter" reality show and trained social-media celebrity Jake Paul in one of his most notable boxing bouts. All these facts have proper citations. Copperheart0718 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment" @Copperheart0718, HeinzMaster, and Saint Invective: Copperheart0718 and Saint Invective, Good day and thank your for your comments above. However, there are some points you guys/girls need to understand. First of all both of your are paid MMA editor which means you have COI and WP:PAID issues here. Secondly, a page is deemed worthy of being in the Wikipedia main space IS subject to CURRENT Wikipedia guidelines. If the subject pass the notability guidelines then it stays in Wikipedia but not because the guidelines might need to be changed or the subject might pass the guidelines in the future. As per current NMMA notability guidelines, (1) promotions considered as the top tier is based on if the promotion has at least 6 world top ten fighters in Sherdog ranking system for at least one year consistently and (2) Individual fighter can be considerable notable if they have been ranked world top 10 in either Sherdog/Fight Matrix at anytime of their MMA professional career. We have contently review the NMMA guidelines, and only recently, we added back Ballator as top tier (Top tier:UFC, Invicta (women) and Bellator (2009-2015 and from 2020 onward) thus it is not out dated. So Saint Ivective, it is not because of your reasons of your professional and knowledge should the subject can have a page in Wikipedia but it is based on if the subject passes the Wikipedia guidelines after all this is Wikipedia and not Sherdog. (Dont get me wrong, we use Sherdog sources in Wikipedia and I read Sherdog articles "daily" to keep myself update with MMA info and Sherdog is the pioneer MMA media and one of best, if not the best, MMA media sites in the world) Furthermore, This is AfD (article for deletion) discussion and not about MMA notability guidelines page. So there is not point to discuss your disagreement of notability guidelines here, as it is the wrong venues and the editor who close this discussion will not take your disagreement of notability in to account as it is based on current notability guidelines. If you want to discuss further, pls pop by my talk page. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 02:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I will take my main argument here to the NMMA notability guidelines page. If this article ends up being deleted under the current guidelines, that's all right, and it can be re-created if the guidelines change.
However, you have now cited the WP:PAID rules more than once here, and I would like to ask why. From what I can see, those rules apply to people who are paid to edit Wikipedia. I am not. I am paid to write about mixed martial arts for Sherdog. I edit Wikipedia for free, I always have, and have been doing so since long before I worked in MMA media. Does the fact that I work in the industry create an implicit conflict of interest that I need to be aware of? Because otherwise, it seems as though the rule merely serves to drive away contributions from editors with strong knowledge of the subject. Saint Invective (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Experts should be encouraged to contribute. Likewise, I prefer that science and history articles be maintained by scientists and historians.
Regarding the rules, I do understand potential conflicts if a fighter or fight team directly pays an editor, or if a personal relationship results in a biased article. That goes against journalistic ethics.
I've personally always edited for free and will continue to do so. I suppose we are on an honor system here. I hope other editors are also unpaid, but I don't see how this sort of thing can be reliably verified. Copperheart0718 (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment" [59][60][61][62] Hopefully, some if not all off these support GNG. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment" Do you have any IRS outside his mma career for many mma fighters have some articles writing about them but there are not notable. Just as there are always have some articles (IRS) talk about a politician during their campaign prior an election and they are still not considred notable as per NPOL until they have been elected; but if subject have other IRS on other then the current career then that is a different thing such as Carlos Ulberg for he is a model besides being a fighter. However, I will let other editors to join the discussion and decide the result of this AfD. Cassiopeia talk 00:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:47, 21 March 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. AFD has been running for over a month, no realistic possibility of the article being deleted based on the below. This is not a bar to an appropriate merger. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Denyer[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E and no discernible profiles of his writing to meet WP:AUTHOR Yogiile (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. The subject is only known for a single event, a controversy about sexual misconduct at the Washington Post. Apart from that he is a low profile individual. Hut 8.5 19:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the small amount of coverage of another minor controversy is enough to overcome these concerns. Per WP:NPF we should consider not even including this information in an article about an unknown BLP at all. And being a bureau chief of the Washington Post is not enough to establish notability per WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 12:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bureau chief of a notable publication is enough to establish notability. Also, I am not sure why WP:BLP1E is brought in here. There are accusations of plagiarism which has multiple full article length discussions other than his sexual misconducts. WP:BLP1E is applicable only when "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." We have many coverages like [63], [64] and [65] which aren't about the incident of his sexual misconduct. Hence WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here and the person seems notable even without the chapter of sexual misconduct. Cirton (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to The Washington Post - This article seems like a WP:BLP violation to me. Between the Daily Beast reports and the Washingtonian report, I do think the subject meets WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I don't see how we could write an article about the subject while meeting WP:BLP. If desired, someone could write an article about the specific allegations regarding Denyer, Kaiman, and the Post's China bureau. That said, I don't think deletion is necessary here: regarding merge target, we don't have an article on Felicia Sonmez or her lawsuit, but it doesn't look like the Post article is so long that it can't be expanded with three sentences (about the lawsuit, the allegations against Denyer, and his resignation). (A further note on sources: the Foreign Policy blog doesn't explicitly mention Denyer, and the plagiarism sources are only passing mentions; if the article were kept, they could support at most a single sentence, and don't contribute to my assessment of notability.)Suriname0 (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, seems to have points of notability enough, if not aplenty. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:42, 21 March 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 12:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayan Thomas[edit]

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

Non-notable wildlife photographer, winner of several non-notable awards, have significant routine coverage that doesn't shows what he is notable for. Page created by a possible undisclosed paid editor who has pushed it into mainspace. Infact I believe he is the smartest COI editor, who changed the name of person from Thomas Vijayan to Vijayan Thomas this time so that all Wikipedia cant link him (Check here). He has also the fastest typing and research speed, did all of edits in a couple of mins at sandbox and mainspace. Review his real name and identity on his official website and Insta. I think COI editor should suggested him to change his legal name too, but probably subject has not agreed. His page has been rejected a few times on AFC. Which COI editor are coming with a keep vote here, I will be watching you. Chrisalder (talk) 06:29, 21 March 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 12:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Nguyen[edit]

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

Another journalist, not notable outside of her company. It is a perfect example how you can twist things by writing Scripps Howard Award and hyperlinking to Scripps Howard Foundation for a non-notable award. She has won an award from Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University. but again it is not a criteria for notability, these one of the common awards given to all journalists and nothing substantial. Most of the news are either have COI or passing mention/routine coverage that we expect for any journalist. The page has been edited by several COI editors and added her linkedin profile too as a reference. Headshot has been added upon request, About me from VickyNguyen.com as ref, "Vicky Nguyen" from NBC Bay Area as COI ref added, no major independent source available for her that shows that why she is notable for a Wikipedia page. As a responsible Wiki editor, I will continue to delete them. I am expecting a lot of COI editor with a keep vote for her, NBC is hiring people to create pages for journalists, making them big. Chrisalder (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • She currently works for national NBC News, and some of her stories have been the subject of discussion in reliable sources.
  • One of her stories at KNTV won a national Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award (credit). Unlike a regional Emmy, which in my estimation does not fulfill the award criteria of ANYBIO, a duPont–Columbia, Peabody, national Emmy, or a national Edward R. Murrow Award will do the trick. In each case, only a handful of organizations are honored each year, and even fewer are local TV newsrooms.
I do suspect there could be some COI editing in the mix, particularly User:Fromano024, who has only ever edited three pages including Nguyen's and did so in 2020. While the use of "About Me" pages should mostly be relegated to claims about the subject, Nguyen clearly passes GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:29, 22 March 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 12:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Freedman[edit]

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

Clearly fails RS, his book also not bestseller, Claiming that he has won fifty-two Emmy awards is emmysf.tv awards and not THE EMMY what we know, the page is twisted well to show notability. He himself have been trying to edit the page, its a clear delete for me. Chrisalder (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chrisalder (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks sufficient sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs work, but WP:JOURNALIST#1 regarded as an important figure and #4 won significant critical attention appear supported by the 54 Emmy awards from the Northern California chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, the induction into the Silver Circle of the Northern California chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences in 2002, the 2021 Governors' Award from the Northern California chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, and the 2022 Career Achievement Award from the Northern California Chapter Society of Professional Journalists, as documented by this in-depth source about his career. There is also: Legendary San Francisco Reporter Wayne Freedman Retires (AdWeek, 2021) Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have started searching the Wikipedia Library, and there is also a book review from an educator journal, a review from the Chicago Tribune of a short documentary about him, and more in-depth coverage of his career that have been added to the article, as well as a source that describes him as "The winner of a staggering 51 Emmy Awards" (Marin Independent Journal, 2015). Beccaynr (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those are probably going to be regional Emmy awards. However, there are some definite keep elements, particularly the year on CBS This Morning. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was a news anchor in a local market, but that local market was the San Francisco metro area. The awards are from a local chapter, but again that local chapter is Northern California, large and populous. His book is used as a textbook in at least one journalism school (Missouri). Admittedly, I have not found standard national sources (e.g. NYT) but I still think he is significant. Lamona (talk) 02:47, 24 March 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) 08:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Stick, West Virginia[edit]

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

This is the best I can do here. I've turned up a couple passing mentions to a "White Stick addition" to Mabscott, but Mabscott's on the other side of Beckley from this place, so that must be something different. Kenny's West Virginia Place Names has Whitestick Creek but no community by this name. Searching brings up literally hundreds of passing mentions to Whitestick Creek, Big White Stick Creek, and Little White Stick Creek, but only the single passing mention to a rail station for any sort of human site. Topos show a single building along the rail tracks. I'm seeing no indication that WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG could be met here. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete everything from this creator without subsequent additions, without prejudice against recreation. With 224 articles deleted and counting (like the classic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey Box, Florida), his contributions are clearly not reliable. One-liners sourced only to WP:GNIS are not worth anyone's time researching, but thank you to Hog Farm for keeping it up. Reywas92Talk 13:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is in a mining area near Beckley. It's likely a mine, possibly of a "White Stick Coal Company" whose "White Stick Mine" was "located on the Piney Branch of the Chesapeake & Ohio Raiload" in 1917, but I cannot in fact read a source for that. As noted in the nomination, the creeks all come up when looking for sources, but they are all in different locations to this. The nearest creek to the location here is Cranberry. We've got a historian in 2019 who has a list of place names, but giving nothing but coördinates, no actual history. We have Jenkins with dates and no statement of what the name refers to, but Jenkins's only possible sources for something that it is claimed didn't exist before 1911, from what's cited, are maps. Including the GNIS compiler in 1997, who used "(historical)", it seems that we have three people who found a dot on some maps throughout a period. The newspaper says station and freight train, and that would align with a mine that used the railroad for haulage. If we cannot reliably tell what the subject even is, which is the case unless someone can find something readable about the mine, there's no basic context for building an article upon. Uncle G (talk) 06:29, 24 March 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) 08:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Lick, West Virginia[edit]

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

This barely passes WP:V, let alone WP:GNG. The GNIS link no longer works, probably because of the purge of features marked as historical. Still, I cannot find coordinates for this location in the article or in GNIS mirrors such as Roadside Thoughts, so we don't even know where this site supposedly is. Searching old newspapers is just getting me references to Big Bone Lick State Park, and the only Bone Lick in Hamill Kenny's West Virginia Place Names is a stream that led to the name of Bone Creek, West Virginia (aka Auburn, West Virginia which is elsewhere in the state). The external link only provides a table with the name and the year 1935 for this site. All I have to verify existence here is this which verifies that a post office was opened there in 1933. I don't see any way that we could support an article on this subject. Hog Farm Talk 05:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is quite plausible that this creator was working in good faith, thinking that what they were contributing was within WP's interest. Their user page has been blanked and I fear that the user is no longer editing. Clearly a lot of work went into the many pages that were created. If this was a case of WP:BITE then that would be a shame. Lamona (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNIS record #1742682 (https://www.topoquest.com/place-detail.php?id=1742682) used by the article creator has feature class "post office". So this is an "unincorporated community" falsehood from a source that explicitly said that this was a post office. Sadly, the source added by Djflem after the AFD nomination, supporting the idea that this is a "community", also explicitly says "postoffice" and "post office" and "post-master" in its first sentence, so that's being mis-used too. The fact that what is clearly a post-office is on a list of "towns" in a newspaper report of a historian that has been used in other articles to bolster "unincorporated community", along with the post-office opening date, does cast significant doubt upon the reliability of that newspaper article and either the historian's or the journalist's ability to distinguish post offices from towns, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: the community generally agrees (as outlined in Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data), GNIS is mostly unreliable in its descriptions. So the claim that the place is a post office citing (GNIS record #1742682 (https://www.topoquest.com/place-detail.php?id=1742682) cannot be trusted. Is this an exception?. Furthermore, an analysis of the sources Sibray, David (January 27, 2019). "Historian looks for patterns in vanishing town names". West Virginia Explorer. Retrieved March 21, 2022. and "Place Names in West Virginia". West Virginia Division of Culture and History: Archives and History. 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2022. reveals NO mention of a post office at all. The ONE that does ("Bone Lick, WV". August 24, 1933. p. 1 – via newspapers.com.) discusses "...the establishment of a postoffice at Bone Lick...", where one sees, unsurprisingly, the words "postoffice" and "post office" and "post-master".
I think we can draw a conclusion here that there was a post office here from the GNIS record, since the name of the feature (GNIS is okay for names in most cases) is "Bone Lick Post Office". We can't draw conclusions about the presence/absence of anything else at the site from GNIS, but I think the presence of the post office is at least verified. Hog Farm Talk 19:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That jibes with the article about the announcement of the opening of a "postoffice at Bone Lick" (1933) and the date of the existence from the historical towns survey. Djflem (talk) 19:38, 24 March 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) 08:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darul mahmud tahfizul quran madrasah sylhet[edit]

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

Non-notable educational institution. No significant coverage in RS found to meet WP:NORG (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nomination. I think this was already deleted once. --ZimZalaBim talk 12:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly not in state for mainspace. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:00, 22 March 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 Soap Opera (album). Stifle (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Romance[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria at WP:NSONG, not notable enough to warrant its own article as a single. -Liancetalk/contribs 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Soap Opera (album). Clearly fails WP:NSONG. While Rlendog has done an excellent job sourcing the article, the song still does not pass NSONG. First, the song does not meet any of the three specific criteria given at NSONG. It did not rank on any music charts, win any significant awards, and it has not been covered by multiple artists. Additionally, because the sources added by Rlendog are mainly about the broader album, Soap Opera, they can not be considered significant coverage of the song per this text as written in NSONG: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." As such, keep is not an option under policy and merge is the best solution.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per 4meter4; none of the three listed criteria at WP:NSONG are met, it's pretty clear on that. The sourcing is indeed excellent, but it can be excellent over on the Soap Opera page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaddude14 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 March 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 12:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rooslina Weti Pg Kamaluddin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Complete lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samsuri Arshad[edit]

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

Another civil servant who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Currently sourced solely with primary sources. Searches did not turn up anything in-depth about them. Onel5969 TT me 11:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Law, and Malaysia. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that’s an awful lot of awards though…… The sources in the ms.wiki are rubbish, so no help there. I’m coming up with quite a few hits on a news search but really heed a native speaker to evaluate them. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree entirely. Atchom (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ready clean up some mistakes of this article, please go check out.

I wonder why this article put in delete nomination, can someone give me the reason

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Mccapra - yes, but none of them by themselves, or as a group, meet any of the notability criteria. And the articles are not in-depth. Onel5969 TT me 10:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I improve the articles already, maybe can stop deletion.

I just added some reference about this article.

Are this article can stop deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal rookie (talk • contribs) 03:20, March 25, 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete No evidence in the article or in searches or this discussion that this article meets the GNG or any relevant SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve this article meets the GNG or any relevant SNG Normalrookie TT me

@Normal rookie:, step 1 would be to read the General Notability Guideline and the Subject Notability Guidelines, particularly the Biography Guideline. Step 2 would be to read the Content Guideline on Reliable Sources. Step 3 would be to find reliable sources that could substantiate that this article complies with those guidelines. I don't think those sources exist but you can certainly try to find them. Good luck and I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Normalrookie TT me 03:09, 26 March 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! 04:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foraker, Montana[edit]

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

The sole non-GNIS source devotes a single sentence, just stating that it was named after a senator. This gives a little more, and says it was a rail station, contrasting it with several other locations the same source refers to as towns. I've seen a few news items from August 1929 referring to a fire starting at "Foraker station". Topos go back to 1918 and show nothing here. This is quite hard to search for due to the site bearing the name of a sitting senator, but I'm not seeing anything that would indicate that this location meets WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm Talk 04:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cannot find any sources documenting this in depth at all. I found some railway timetables listing the station, and an argument that the Northern Pacific railway could serve it instead of the Milwaukee, and that's it. Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 21 March 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! 04:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Erivan Khans[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of Erivan Khanate (incl. Erivan Khanate#List of Khans). - LouisAragon (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:36, 21 March 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. It's snowing out there. (non-admin closure) ~StyyxTalk? 20:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Özlem Çarıkçıoğlu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be happy to do a customised Turkish-language source search but I'd like to see some evidence of a WP:BEFORE first. @Sportsfan 1234: there are a bunch of articles about her in the Google News search results above. An explanation of why you find these insufficient would be helpful. --GGT (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She is an Olympian, and therefore deserves this article. Please remove your deleteion tag, which is unjustified. CeeGee 07:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete last October we decided that non-medalers in the Olympics are not considered default notable. So CeeGee's argument totally ignores existing policy. We lack adequate sources here to justify an article. Anyway, articles are not "deserved", they are created when adequate sourcing can be found.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that NOLYMPICS no longer covers all Olympians does not mean that a WP:BEFORE is no longer expected. Editors nominating for deletion or !voting delete are expected to clarify why exactly they find any easily accessible sources insufficient. As mentioned above there are a bunch of Turkish-language sources that come up in the Google News results, including a profile of her by TRT. This is prima facie decent enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Again, it is the onus of those arguing for deletion to put forward a convincing argument about these sources, and if they do, I'll have a deeper look at them and carry out a wider Turkish-language search to look for harder-to-find sources. But users cannot be expected to spend time and carry out comprehensive searches where the very basic requirements for a nomination are not being met. --GGT (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GGT (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GGT. Subject appears to meet GNG with the additional sources. --Enos733 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments on the sources provided?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per GGT. Subject has adequate references from Turkish media. That she didn't medal at the Olympics doesn't discount her notability and achievements prior to competing. ExRat (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sensible points made by GGT, ExRat and others. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources look to exist in Turkish about her. In a 2 minute search, I found [66] and [67], so sure more significant coverage exists about her. Just because the coverage doesn't exist in English, that doesn't make them non-notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found in Turkish. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per NSPORT. Sources are not required to be in English. Rlendog (talk) 19:48, 23 March 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! 04:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Malykhin[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion and current ranking stand as [#44] which fails the but way out of top ten requirement. Subject also fails GNG as the fight info is merely routine sport reports. Cassiopeia talk 00:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify slightly notable expecting more coverage soon needs lot of improvement, draft is the better option as the article looks good (improvement needed). @@@XyX talk 21:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, subject fails GNG and NMMA and raise more than 100 in world ranking. Would be anytime be notable. No point to dratify untl subject has pass notablity guidelines which, and if it happens would be many many years from now. Cassiopeia talk 23:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I cannot accept bare assertions that GNG/NMMA are met when these assertions have been challenged and the requested sources have not been forthcoming. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinier de Ridder[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion and ranked as 32] which is way outside the world top ten ranking. Subject also fails GNG as the fight info is merely routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 01:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW 3 sources is not considered significant coverage. Under which policy or guideline is that? gidonb (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging nominator so they can still react. gidonb (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying once more to get answers on this statement from Cassiopeia. gidonb (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Too pass the notability, subject need to be covered by significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk above the subject directly in depth and in length and not merely passing mentioned. 3 sources does not qualify as significant coverage but at least 5-7 and above. Cassiopeia
@Cassiopeia: You do not explain, just say: sources does not qualify as significant coverage but at least 5-7 and above. Again, based on what policy or guideline? gidonb (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

talk 23:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To me, significant coverage is not one, or two (a few), several (3-4) sources. Let other editor and closing editor to decide. Cassiopeia talk 02:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you are basically saying that this is not really based in our policies and guidelines but that you, personally, have a radical view of the WP:GNG. That is of course ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinion (including expressing these on policy/guideline talk pages), however, when you then go and open a lot of AfDs based on this radical view, and next also argue as the nominator with participants who happen to have a conventional view of the WP:GNG, you are holding the development and quality control of WP back as editors will be drawn to spend ever more time in AfDs and related procedures instead of much needed work in the article space. This is my concern with unnecessary nominations! Maybe we can all think about the wisdom of so many nominations, where the WP:GNG is met by regular WP standards, that come along with lengthy arguments under about every user who has a different (conventional) opinion. gidonb (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes NMMA.
https://www.espn.com/mma/fighter/_/id/4423880/reinier-de-ridder Trommelaap (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, he doesn't meet any of the WP:NMMA criteria. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 18:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: To be the subject fails GNG. See above comment. Cassiopeia talk 23:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough coverage to satisfy GNG. We can restore this page back in a year or two, as he isn't far off from meeting WP:MMABIO. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 14:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The proposals to redirect to a redlink are discounted. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Agarwal Arts[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NORG, much of the sourcing in the article is about the films the production house has made, where it itself receives non-significant mentions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Hungama, Bollywood. "The Kashmir Files Box Office Collection | India | Day Wise | Box Office - Bollywood Hungama". Retrieved 2022-03-22.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_21&oldid=1080309824"