Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 18	November 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of film broadcasting rights in the United States[edit]

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

List of obscure info of limited interest, entirely sourced from one article from 2009. Trivialist (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Trivialist (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited (here) hardly supports anything in this article. Furthermore, the article is confusing, saying, for example, that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer has given exclusive broadcast licensing rights to its films to Epix/Amazon Prime Video; AMC/IFC; USA Network/Syfy; Paramount Network/MTV/Nickelodeon; TBS/TNT/Cartoon Network/Turner Classic Movies; Disney Channel/Disney XD/Freeform/FX/FX Movie Channel; This TV; and Paramount+. If the rights deal was really exclusive, I wouldn't expect to see so many different broadcasting entities (owned by several different companies) holding the rights. This is an odd use of the word "exclusive". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:53, 20 November 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 List of airports in Antigua and Barbuda. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of heliports in Antigua and Barbuda[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Two heliports not talked about as a group except perhaps on the website of the owner, Calvinair which is the only ref, except for googlemaps which are probably not RS as the labels of the heliports may just be "suggested edits" by Calvinair as well. MB 22:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and ~~Barbados~~. MB 22:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from Barbados delsort. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antigua and Barbuda-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of airports in Antigua and Barbuda. Reywas92^Talk 06:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of airports in Antigua and Barbuda is better option as given by Reywas92 also. The above list of heliports fails WP:NLIST.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:36, 20 November 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 06:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panagarh Bazar Hindi High School[edit]

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

Can't seem to find any sources that prove the article's notability. - Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Same as the other school nomination, no redeeming qualities. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 10:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL.LibStar (talk) 05:53, 22 November 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!} 07:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Spanish International (badminton)[edit]

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

Another article failing WP:GNG. Spanish International (badminton) is sufficient and we do not need separate articles for insignificant tournaments like these. zoglophie 14:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Spain. zoglophie 14:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We honestly do not need separate articles for a tournament that happened at a game.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:55, 23 November 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!} 21:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StandBy Records[edit]

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

Unnotable music label company. The article has no sources and when I searched it on google, it was only their Facebook page and website. Fails WP:GNG `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Ohio and Companies. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was nominated for AfD shortly after an add-delete cycle that stripped it of essentially all of its content, including its lede. The label has received some press and its roster is consistent with WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie; the label's roster included bands such as Black Veil Brides, Emarosa, As Blood Runs Black, and No Bragging Rights. Chubbles (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the reasons stated by Chubbles above. It helps to look at an article's history if it's in an inexplicably hollow or empty state on first view. This one went through an edit war for reasons that I don't know, but it was in better shape before. Thanks to Chubbles for restoring it to a more viable state. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Raipur[edit]

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

Should be deleted for the same reasons as List of tallest structures in Isfahan, List of tallest buildings in Rajasthan and List of tallest buildings in Ludhiana. Some of the individual buildings are mentioned in the media but I see no reliable sources discussing in detail the topic of 'tallest buildings in Raipur' or discussing these 'skyscrapers' together as a group. The statistics in the article are a violation of WP:NOR.

It fails WP:LISTN. We can't even argue that the list is a useful navigation tool or index as none of the contents of the list are notable. Most importantly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and there is clear consensus in all recent AfDs for "List of tallest buildings in ___" on this issue. See search results. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Chhattisgarh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The buildings aren't mentioned on Raipur, too. I don't think there's much point in merging it, too. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Beaumont[edit]

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

Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists, they must meet WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists.

The topic of tall buildings in Beaumont as a whole has no significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Texas. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary article, it doesnt have a purpose. It is not notable enough for a article.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:56, 22 November 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!} 20:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Charleston, West Virginia[edit]

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

Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists, they must meet WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama which both closed as clear delete, with closure statements refuting the argument that any other criteria takes precedence over notability for these lists.

The topic of tall buildings in Charleston, West Virginia as a whole has no significant coverage, and this list has minimal navigational purpose given that the majority of these do not have articles, and are unlikely to have articles in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and West Virginia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many, many discussions on similar lists. Not discussed at length as a group in WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary article, it doesnt have a purpose. It is not notable enough for a article.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:55, 22 November 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!} 20:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Groth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. The three sources actually about this article's subject are two small human interest stories from a local news station (KPRC) and another small human interest story from the university he attends (neither of which, I'll add, are independent by nature of being interviews).

WP:BEFORE (which turned up nothing outside of the sources used here) shows that the absolute bottom of the barrel was scraped to find sources even tangentially related to Groth ("tangentially related" would even be a generous description of some of the sources). For example, four of the 11 sources are listicles from ScreenRant (borderline blog spam articles) that, in case of the second one for example, have one single item out of 10 being a screenshot of a meme posted to MandJTV's subreddit (not even made or posted by Groth himself) but zero mention of MandJTV; the only text about MandJTV in the article is the data pulled from the Reddit API which reads "r/MandJTV".

Meanwhile, things like the Business Insider source are a brief, inherently non-independent interview from Groth placed among several other terse interviews with YouTubers within the same article, not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with Groth himself as a subject and is instead a story about a drop in ad revenue among YouTube creators.

In summary, the sources we have are:

Two small human-interest stories from local news channel KPRC.
One small human-interest story from Rice University.
One ScreenRant listicle about Poketubers that contains a bare-minimum, 107-word description of Groth's channel.
Three ScreenRant blog spam listicles about memes that have (I cannot emphasize this enough) literally nothing to do with Groth.
Two Business Insider articles that have a few words from Groth about YouTuber ad revenue among the words of several other YouTubers.
A short article from Sportskeeda (a source which covers such important topics on its front page as "4 best organic babyface turns from the Triple H era of WWE so far") regurgitating verbatim Groth's opinions on BDSP.

It feels like this article was WP:REFBOMBed, whether intentionally or not, to, respectively, give the subject a facade of notability or to pad out what would otherwise be a four-sentence stub. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that the prior Michael Groth AfD was about a completely unrelated subject and is of no relevance here, despite its automatic inclusion by the AfD script. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't even noticed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the nom's detailed analysis that the references are poor. The first two references are routine interview-like coverage that does not seem to pass WP:SIGCOV IMO, whereas this is a listicle that comes nowhere near to WP:SIGCOV as well. Next, there are numerous bottom-of-the-barrel listicles from ScreenRant, which is marginally reliable per WP:RSP, the coverage appear to be routine and trivial, in merely a few short paragraphs. Similarly, the Business Insider articles, which is generally reliable for its culture section but marginally reliable otherwise (I'm unsure if media articles are culture ones) cover routine subscriber and revenue details along with a few interview-like quotes, falling into a minor story per WP:GNG that is not WP:SIGCOV. My WP:BEFORE did not find sources that could demonstrate notability, only trivial mentions or non-SIGCOV routine coverage such as 1. Similarly, IMO WP:BASIC and WP:NARTIST are also failed. VickKiang (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that interviews were not considered independent. I'll be more careful about sourcing in the future. I agree the page should be deleted since there aren't independent sources. 19jshi (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A unnotable youtuber that has not done a signifigant thing to be on an article.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to WP:GAMESOURCES, screen rant isn't appropriate for demonstrating notability. The other sources also have issues with independence and/or reliability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per general consensus. I see no notability here. Zekerocks11 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 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!} 20:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Morris (comedian)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Comedian is not notable. Previously deleted, only for the comedian in question to remake the page himself with references to his blog. SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All references appear to either be self-written blog posts or interviews with local news. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the article creator is not himself, it is a rather suspicious WP:SPA, whose activity was limited to a short period in 2014-2015. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:53, 23 November 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!} 20:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Hernández (knight)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG: Sole source is an apparent vanity published book about the author's family history, which claims the subject of this article as their putative progenitor. Zero results for the subject, the author, "Ninjo Vague", or "Vito Ninovagio" on Google Scholar, nothing significant in a Google Books search. Previously nominated for PROD, but I'm bringing it here to AfD following comments from the initial editor on the article talk page. My assessment of the subject's notability is unchanged, but the deletion is clearly no longer uncontroversial so PROD is inappropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Italy, and Spain. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The name Pedro Hernandez appears in books but none from this time period. As a Spanish name there would generally be more than the first/last name, and that might help find this person in historical works. Also, it isn't clear to me from this article if 1499 is the birth or the death date, and that would help connect this PH to any of the ones we do find. Without more sources, though, this article cannot stand. Lamona (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the book cited here is self-published by the "Ninivaggi" foundation, so not an independent source and possibly not a reliable source. I can't access it so I can't make a further analysis, but it does not appear in WorldCat, Amazon, nor in the Italian library union catalog, SBN. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It is quite possible that what is described is true. However the core of the article is about the knight acknowledging his paternity of a child. There is no indication that either the father or the child was notable. Conclusion NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 20 November 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!} 20:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chengiz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sign of notability. The sources are regurgitated press releases or fluffy gossip pieces that do not cover the film in any detail. bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 18:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: It is an upcoming movie which means it doesn't have review from newspapers and also doesn't got or nominated for award so Draftify it and send it WP:AfC, when it will be released. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 20:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest not draftifying; there is nothing in the draft that would be useful in an article. And although it might become notable after it is released, it is equally likely that it won't.

More importantly: there is already a draft, since the previous AfD discussion ended in a consensus to draftify. That draft was declined two days ago. The creator of the current article (who incidentally is evading a block, and who has ignored multiple warnings about promotional editing) chose to create a new article. I don't see why that kind of disruption should be rewarded. --bonadea contributions talk 00:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a chance that it can pass WP:NFO in 2023. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 08:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if that happens, it would be possible for an unpaid good-faith editor to create an article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no point in creating a second draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 22 November 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!} 20:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Tolusso[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. I found this source, but it's local and barely mentions him. SL93 (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Canadian Junior Curling Championships are not a level of play that secures automatic free passage of our notability criteria for curlers, but the article is not based on any significant reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of WP:GNG. And even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not have Googled well given that his "notability" claim is over a decade old, I didn't find anything significant — other than the exact same Ottawa Sun article mentioned in the nomination, which isn't enough all by itself, I only got glancing namechecks of his existence as a participant in junior curling competitions rather than coverage that was substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bearcat's search indicates a lack of coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:16, 26 November 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 Personal lubricant. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation cream[edit]

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

I'vr declined a speedy deletion request on this, but it's clearly not appropriate for a Wikipedia page. Although it's demonstrable that these products exist, there's nothing I can see to suggest that any independent reliable source has even acknowledged their existence, let alone considered them significant enough to write about. ‑ Iridescent 17:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no citations at all. The dead links were all to retailers. The Personal lubricant article is the correct place for any remaining information. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no coverage of the topic independent of the various companies selling the products, which is a good indication that it's not notable. At best a couple of lines could be merged to personal lubricant. Chagropango (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to personal lubricant. At least it deserves to be noted that these products are incompatible with latex. BD2412 T 19:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as op, don't count me twice, but there are no citations so there's nothing to merge. Hence why I expedited.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think merging is a good idea, for it sounds just like a marketing fork for a lubricant. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I'm uncertain what happens next or when this discussion closes. This article is exactly as said above - a 'marketing fork' with brand names and a dead link to amazon. Can we delete now? Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:33, 26 November 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 Anti-pattern#Software engineering anti-patterns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big ball of mud[edit]

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

While plenty of sources use this term, there doesn't appear to be much to be said about it; it doesn't really pass WP:DICDEF as an encyclopedic subject. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this could be merged somewhere useful. BD2412 T 19:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the same rough meaning as Kludge? Joyous! | Talk 19:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, I don't think. Big ball of mud seems to designate code that is badly organized due to the lack of central guiding principles. Kludges probably play a role there, but on a different scale. I think a Wiktionary redirect could be the best option for this page, but that'd require someone to create a definition over there first. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anti-pattern#Software_engineering_anti-patterns, where it is mentioned. Probably a selective merge is best--drop the big quote and add the reference. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 12:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anti-pattern#Software_engineering_anti-patterns seems sensible to me too. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to [[Anti-pattern#Software_engineering_anti-patterns as suggested above. Great context at that target to give more meaning to the phrase. Joyous! | Talk 19:34, 20 November 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!} 20:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savings Account (2022 film)[edit]

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

I am not persuaded that this passes WP:NFILM. References are in one case a 404 error, and in all other cases PR material. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article should speak for itself, and nothing in this article even addresses either film notability or general notability. There are no reviews, and no mention of any other significant coverage by independent sources. A reader of an article wants to be able to read the article and learn why the subject is notable, and this says nothing. If the article is expanded in seven days, a Heymann close is possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've draftified a version of this article a while ago, with the rationale that the article was not ready at all for mainspace. It hasn't changed since then, so... LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to not passing WP:GNG, might also be a case of WP:UPE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 22 November 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) Garuda3 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Kian Pirfalak[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, unlikely to receive additional sources beyond initial burst of coverage. Sungodtemple (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tragic, but not notable. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the incident isn't just a simple casualty of crackdowns but it sparks new wave of protests according to: ^[1]^[2], also the kind's death triggered a nationwide emotional reactions all over the media, many news agencies and public figures are discussing his death due to lethal crackdowns which can verify the article notability as an important event. Look at the serious conflict between his family and the government over the description of his death, may it reveal the importance of the event. 3000MAX (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The death event, his funeral, the parent and relatives interviews, its effect on public reactions and protests flow has been discussed and covered by many mainstream medias both inside and out of the country:

https://www.ft.com/content/3fb168bb-da90-4286-b986-256ad4708607

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-protests-escalate-amid-funerals-for-children-reportedly-killed-by-regime/

https://www.niacouncil.org/human_rights_tracker/kian-pirfalak/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/18/iran-protests-izeh-kian-pirfalak/

https://www.manilatimes.net/2022/11/20/news/world/angry-funerals-spark-new-protests-in-iran/1866972

https://localtoday.news/us/the-killing-of-nine-year-old-kian-pirfalak-sparked-anti-government-protests-in-iran-185338.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/18/iran-protests-izeh-kian-pirfalak/

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202211198693

3000MAX (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is room for expand the article and further news will be publish, it's yet to be done. 3000MAX (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Washington Post it "further ignites Iran’s anti-government protests". the event made "Iran's envoy to UNICEF, actress Mahtab Keramati, resigne to protest a lack of action". the event itself is notable enough to support standalone article, but the child? I'm not sure. Jeeputer ^Talk 18:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Johnston, Holly (2022-11-18). "Iran: crowds cheer as Ayatollah Khomeini's ancestral home burns". The National. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
^ Williams, Stuart. "Angry Funerals Spark New Protests In Iran". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2022-11-19.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the event has a lot of reliable sources (see the Persian language version). The event has impacted future global protests, as per sources (so WP:NOTNEWS isn’t applicable). The article does needs clean up, but that is not a reason for deletion. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the impact and the sources. I will try working on the article. ParadaJulio (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a well-known dead person and it is highly regarded.[1] Jinjiyanazadi (talk) 13:47, 24 November 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!} 19:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Bocaj[edit]

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

Despite playing a decent number of professional matches, no evidence of significant coverage for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Gazeta TemA which merely states his age, position and birthplace (Soccerway could tell you that). There is also a story mentioning him in Panorama but this is a textbook example of a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 21:12, 22 November 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, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine rugby union players[edit]

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

Useless unsourced random list, see WP:NOT Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Rugby union, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better handled as a category. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is selective, out of date, and other than 'Argentine' has no clear inclusion criteria (is it internationals, Argentine born players, professional, etc.). We have a suitable category here anyway, and shouldn't have lists like this, especially as the list has no links anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of free geophysics software[edit]

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

Prodded by Pppery (talk · contribs) with reference to the following precedents:

The previous AfDs concerned overreliance on primary sources and OR with too many technical details and non-notable entries. Then the article was deprodded by Christian75 (talk · contribs) without explanation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Software, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems to be relatively in line with pages like Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of source-code-hosting facilities and Comparison of web server software. And if we're referencing old VfD's there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of BitTorrent software for a 'keep' example from when we were young. That said those rationales are... Let's just say we've grown. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a persuasive argument here. The precedents I referenced are from this year, so contrasting them with ones from 2006 is not convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it's not an other stuff exists arguments. Looking at the links I chose shows a general trend of keeping comparisons of actual, stand alone software. The links in the nominators statement to other AfDs are all for add-ons, enhancements, plugins and the like. Illustrating a difference in community consensus on qualitatively different contents and saying this is more like one set then the other is not an other stuff exists rationale. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 16:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria I used to decide whether to PROD or AfD on October 28 was generally whether most of the entries themselves were notable, which these one's aren't. The fact that only entries for add-ons, enhancements, plugins and the like seems to have been a coincidence. The most recent time a AfD for an article of this style was closed as keep was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Remote Music Performance Software (2020), so there's really not enough data to make the point you are trying to make with respect to current consensus . Also note that I would support deleting Comparison of Remote Music Performance Software for the same reason if it were brought back to AfD, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder; this is no better than the lists deleted there or in several of my other recent AfDs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a persuasive argument here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments. I think of my argument for deletion as more of an incorporation by reference of the delete arguments in previous AfDs, which I believe continue to apply here, not merely "we deleted X so we should also delete Y". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with citing previous AfDs as a reason for deletion here. The main problem to me is that there are no independent, secondary and reliable coverage of free geophysics software as a whole. Thus, this fails WP:NLIST. With regards to concerns of including entries that do not have their own article, it should be okay since criteria for inclusion in lists should be weaker than criteria for inclusion as an article. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:49, 20 November 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 Georgia–Tennessee football rivalry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Tennessee vs. Georgia football game[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

While the game is between the #1 and #2 ranked teams in country, the game was one sided and incredibly regular. It's not a notable game that will be of interest for the future. The game can be discussed reasonably at 2022 Tennessee Volunteers football team, 2022 Georgia Bulldogs football team and Game of the Century (college football). Esolo5002 (talk) 07:02, 12 November 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 November 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some might say that because of the one-sided nature of the football game means that it must need to be deleted. However, the game is deserving of a page because it is a rivalry game, which makes the game special for it to be of the No. 1 and No. 2-ranked teams. Plus, it wasn't as much as a blowout as No. 1 Ohio State's 24-7 win over No. 2 Texas in 2006. HurricaneDeci (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out other articles is not a valid reason for inclusion. Only the merits of THIS article are being discussed here. Frank Anchor 05:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The poll era started in 1936. In 87 years, there have only been 25 regular-season games matching No. 1 vs. No. 2. In the past 15 years, it's only happened two other times: 2011 LSU vs. Alabama football game and 2019 LSU vs. Alabama football game -- both of which have stand-alone articles. Cbl62 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ WP:NSPORTSEVENT says "To be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport", and the article does not make this case at all (nor have I been able to find any coverage that would suggest this). OliveYouBean (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Redirect to Georgia–Tennessee football rivalry (agree with comments below and honestly I should've gone with redirect to begin with). OliveYouBean (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ redirect to rivalry page. Article shows only WP:ROUTINE coverage of an average game. CC WP:EVENT WP:CFBGAME No. 1 vs. No. 2 is the only possible aspect that increases its notability, and the game itself failed to live up to any pre-game hype. PK-WIKI (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per above. No significant, non-routine coverage provided. 1 vs. 2 games have occurred on a semi-frequent basis (about once every 3.5 seasons in the regular season alone per user:Cbl62) so the 1 vs 2 matchup doesn’t automatically make it notable for a standalone article. The game itself was rather run-of-the-mill as evidenced by only WP:ROUTINE coverage and game reports being available. Frank Anchor 05:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect per below comments. I generally support using WP:ATDs when a suitable merge/redirect target is identified. I maintain my above argument as this game is not notable as a stand-alone article. Frank Anchor 18:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, HurricaneDeci removed the Article for Deletion template from the page without consensus having been reached here first. I have reverted the change.Esolo5002 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or partial merge with Georgia–Tennessee football rivalry. The game IMO is quite notable. Regular season matches between No. 1 and No. 2 are quite rare -- it's only happened three times in the last 15 years. However, the game can best be dealt with in the context of the existing rivalry article. Perhaps add a not-quite-so-detailed description to the rivalry article discussing the 2022 game. Summaries of the game can also be included in 2022 Georgia Bulldogs football team and 2022 Tennessee Volunteers football team. Cbl62 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider redirect or merge as ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete game ended up being almost entirely non-notable. WP:NSPORTSEVENT controls. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Esolo5002: @OliveYouBean: @PK-WIKI: @Frank Anchor: @127(point)0(point)0(point)1: There is broad consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, but is there any reason not to create a redirect to Georgia–Tennessee football rivalry as an alternative to deletion? Cbl62 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just speaking for myself, I'd be perfectly fine with that. It is a plausible search from someone invested in the rivalry, and a 1-2 contest is almost certainly going to be coverex in an article on the rivalry even if it's not notable enough as an actual game. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 16:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgia–Tennessee football rivalry, where this game can be covered in the context of the overall rivalry between these two teams. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgia–Tennessee football rivalry: Fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT but is still relevant to the rivalry and a possible search term. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:47, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Research Institute[edit]

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

No significant presence more than a university's sub institute. Not even single reliable reference but external links, and homepage even nothing showing anything. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there isn't much independent media coverage, there is significant coverage in academic literature including numerous citations. See the following:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20846998

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41480180

https://ibir-api.hbku.edu.qa/sites/default/files/2019-10/Islam-and-Economic-Development.pdf

The last article has over 179 citations and is one of many of their published articles with multiple citations. The article does appear to need cleanup in line with WP:NPOV, however. Chagropango (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm of the opinion that major institutes at notable universities are nearly always prima facie notable on their own, but the lack of outside sourcing is troubling. I'm going to assume there's more available in Arabic or Punjabi and this is a function of our blindness to non-english sources, but if a native speaker trawls the archives for a while and comes up empty I'm happy to re-evaluate with the knowledge that my assumptions were false. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Of course major institutes at notable universities are notable on their own. Islamic Research Institute is part of International Islamic University, Islamabad which is a 'Recognized University and Degree Awarding Institution in Pakistan' - duly recognized by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, the highest education authority in Pakistan (added this reference today). In addition, Al-Sharia Academy website reference is also independent media coverage of this institute. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-West Report[edit]

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

Article relies exclusively on primary sources. Notabilility is dubious. Quantum XYZ (chat) 06:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Quantum XYZ (chat) 06:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, search for its previous and current name turns up very little. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles have very low citation rates and the publication on its own doesn't appear to be the subject of WP:SIGCOV. Chagropango (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has only single cited source and lacks significant coverage Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Couldn't find any significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. ProofRobust 12:07, 19 November 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 09:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke Approach[edit]

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

Clear attempt at an ad as it currently stands. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. AllyD (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See this note (which was seems to have been responding to the earlier PROD rather than the present AfD). AllyD (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the article should be significantly improved to avoid promotionalism, I'm seeing enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. The Sydney Morning Herald and Canberra Times articles, plus an Adelaide Advertiser article I found, speak to notability, not to mention the many more trivial mentions in reliable, independent sources. Also seeing some coverage in academic sources (such as this one). —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The academic paper has only a passing mention. The Advertiser article is 404 to me. The Canberra Times is a couple of passing mentions. That piece is focused on activities of ex-politicians, some of whom are involved in Bespoke, but WP:NOTINHERITED is relevant here. SpinningSpark 15:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's possible that Ian Smith is notable but that the firm is not. However, as I continue to search, things keep coming up: this article from Crikey, further mentions in the Advertiser (1, 2). (I should note that Crikey seems less than ideal in terms of reliability, however). To me, the Canberra Times article meets the threshold for significant coverage. It's a borderline case, but I still lean keep. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mostly one sided and self promotional. Teraplane (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I have previously refrained from commenting due to a COI - I am acquainted with the editor who created the article IRL, as we move in similar circles / community organisations related to environmental conservation and arts events. (Adelaide isn't a huge city, and the number of WP editors here isn't large.)

I'd like to make the following points:

1. For the benefit of non-Australian editors, I can confidently say there is significant coverage of Bespoke Approach in print media. However, both the local daily, The Advertiser, and the national daily, The Australian, are News Corp mastheads which put their content behind paywalls back in 2011. (FYI, Adelaide is where Rupert Murdoch started his now global media empire.) Although I'm not a News Corp subscriber, I do have some older press clippings I can use for refs to improve the article.

2. To those editors arguing for deletion on the grounds of the article being "too promotional", I'd say that their interpretation is, ironically, rather superficial, and misguided. AFAIK the article was started as part of a laudable attempt using published data to map the influence of lobbyists attempting to influence politicians and the general public prior to and during the course of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, which was set up to assess whether South Australia could make megabillions by hosting a global repository for high-level nuclear waste. That idea has been around for some time, e.g. 1, 2.

As the old Yorkshire saying has it, "where there's muck, there's brass". I'm also reminded of the saying attributed to Bismark: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made". IMHO, the article throws a much-needed light on some of the sausage-making machinery, and deserves to be retained. Bahudhara (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as casting light on the issue, this may fall into the WP:ITSUSEFUL fallacy. There are plenty of cases where more information on the activities of advocacy groups could be beneficial to the general public, but that's not necessarily the purpose of Wikipedia. Chagropango (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), 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.

Since the topic is an organization, WP:NCORP criteria apply. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two references that meet NCORP criteria. Each reference must involve deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and also the in-depth information must be "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.

Clearly the founders/directors have been written about in various articles but the topic is the organization and not the directors. Bahudhara says that there may be references behind paywalls but from the limited access I have to archived newspapers, I am unable to locate any reference that meets NCORP. Happy to reconsider if any good refs turn up. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though the article has WP:INDEPENDENT sources such as [[2]] [[3]] it lacks a deep coverage about the WP:ORGDEPTH. The article also has some part of self promotional content Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't doubt there is lots of press on Bespoke, however the Canberra Times article does not have in depth coverage of Bespoke, so the only independent, reliable, and in-depth coverage currently cited is the Sydney Morning Herald article. If, as Bahudhara says, there are locally available print sources that establish notability, there needs to be some additional verification of this and the editorial quality of those sources. Chagropango (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with merge of content & redirect to Ian Smith (lobbyist). It seems to me there are only two references found so far that could potentially meet NCORP criteria: Sydney Morning Herald and Crikey (the Canberra Times and Financial Review articles lack significant coverage). But of the two, the Crikey article is essentially about Ian Smith, not Bespoke. If more significant coverage beyond these two references are dug up, it could meet NCORP clearly but as it stands it doesn't meet the bar. -SpuriousQ (talk) 05:40, 27 November 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 Charles Bolsius. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeaChar House[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. There is practically no coverage of this house anywhere. Of the off-line sources in the article, only the first two could contribute to notability. They are both local newspaper articles, and searching does not turn up anything else. This house is mentioned in Charles Bolsius, so Redirect there. MB 05:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Arizona. MB 05:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the architect, Charles Bolsius. He's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charles Bolsius. Even the cited sources (available at Newspapers.com) seem to discuss the Charles Bolsius House rather than this one, and my search didn't find any coverage in reliable sources at all. Fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:24, 20 November 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. A merger might be explored further on the talk page. Sandstein 09:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearables[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well the WaPo article uses it, we could probably argue GNG is met based on the other sources, it didn't catch on as a term though. The article sounds flowery, the bottom paragraphs at least. Needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's still around, barely. [4] paid Forbes Council thing article uses it in 2021, but it's not widespread. I wouldn't be terribly disturbed if we deleted the article, on the fence at this point. What do others thing? Oaktree b (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should probably be merged and redirected to Bluetooth Low Energy beacon. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be a neologism, but it is a neologism to name a notable class of devices and therefore a valid article. PUblished scholarly papers using the term and discussing these devices include

Also some discussion in these books [5][6][7][8] SpinningSpark 22:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into smart object. This article claims they're a "further development" of IoT, but wireless sensors already existed, so the "development" appears to be... attaching things to things? I suspect this page was created as a stealth ad for Estimote. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "already existed" is an argument for deletion. One could say the same thing about Internet of things – the internet certainly already existed and things on the internet (that is, addressable things with sensors) already existed. SpinningSpark 09:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I agree with what you say but disagree with your conclusion, so I'll try to express the same thing differently: this seems to me like it's not a substantially separate concept from smart objects, and the only new development is that some company made up a word for marketing purposes. That, in itself, does not deserve a separate page, in my view. Maybe a redirect, given that people do seem to use the word sometimes. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a merge of a few sentences is in order? ––FormalDude (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to that if people feel there's salvageable content, and I've updated my !vote above to say so. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 07:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@3mi1y: I agree that nearables are a class of smart object, but they are hardly a synonym so, yes, they are a "substantially different concept". Mobile device, wearable technology, and modern printer (computing) are all also smart objects but not nearables. We can, in principle, have as many articles on subsets of smart objects as we want. The only question to answer is whether there is enough material available to fill a standalone page. SpinningSpark 08:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, two potential redirect/merge targets mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is clearly notable, but the article likely needs to be reframed to be about a term which failed to catch on rather than an actual class of devices. Chagropango (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble buying "failed to catch on". The results in gscholar are spread from 2014 to the present year. The (often inaccurate) count by google says there are 520 results, but I have checked through to verify that there are at least 100 papers using the term. As far as I can see, they are all in the context of our article. Similarly, gbooks has dozens of results spread from 2015 to 2022. SpinningSpark 08:19, 19 November 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. Closing in a procedural keep, given the canvassing and lack of a policy-based deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation[edit]

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

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

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

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

The theme of the page is the same as the Mo Dao Zu Shi, these two pages should delete one of them or merge them. Rastinition (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are numerous differences between the original novel and the donghua, which is an adaption for it to share the same page.They both deserve their own pages,as having them under the same pages will make it contradictory.

Also, if that is the problem, then " The Untamed," which is another adaption should also be considered for deletion going by your opinion since the theme is similar enough.

Many other popular fiction have difference pages for the source material and its adaptions.A Song of Ice and Fire has its own page dedicated to the novel and there's a separate page for its TV show Games of Throne. Same with Tolkien's books and adaptions.What makes their pages different then ours? They should also be considered if going by your view.

Another question is why has there is several citation removal, as well as structural changes made to our page without any explanation? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you know that tumbex is a mirror site of tumblr? And tumblr is a blog site.If you know that and keep using those links, then I'd say you're trying to make link farms. Rastinition (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

I do not recommend setting up unreliable sources. I think there is already a corresponding discussion in the past, I don't need additional explanations, such as why not use facebook. Rastinition (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure we can change the citations, so please let use look at it without trying to revert my changes again. I think we are allowed that much time to go back and look into it to change unreliable sources. Are we not?

I do not get what you mean by," why not use Facebook"?

Most importantly, Why is our page being considered for deletion just because it's adaptions, which are vastly differing in plots in important places, has it's own page? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I illustrate with a hypothetical example.Superman has comics, movies, and novels, but these contents should all be recorded in Superman.If you need to set up multiple pages because of too much content, you can discuss splitting into Superman (comic), Superman (movie), and Superman (novel).So my text uses delete one of them or merge them Rastinition (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superman is a character, not a book or a show.A novel with various adaption is a much better comparison. If a popular western novel can have its own page and its adaption on separate page, such as I wrote before, " A Song of Ice and Fire" I don't see why we can't keep these two? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please undo your changes so I can check it in it's original form (when i last edited) as that will make it easier for me to see where I have unreliable sources and remove them. Also, makes it easier for me to add reliable source. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a theme is large enough to set up several different pages, WP:disambiguation should be used. Rastinition (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic."

Our pages have two different title. There is not conflicts arising from them. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I warn you not to keep triggering filter 1081 or 550.

03:40, 19 November 2022: Shadowyblue09 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 1,081, performing the action "edit" on Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Unreliable source added by revert, script or bot
03:45, 19 November 2022: Shadowyblue09 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 1,081, performing the action "edit" on Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Unreliable source added by revert, script or bot
03:45, 19 November 2022: Shadowyblue09 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 550, performing the action "edit" on Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: nowiki tags inserted into an article
03:39, 19 November 2022: Shadowyblue09 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 550, performing the action "edit" on Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: nowiki tags inserted into an article

Rastinition (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please just undo your changes so I can check it in its original state and find more reliable sources? That would make this process easier.

Also, please answer my question about the deletion. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page used to be a draft and was moved to article without being reviewed by anyone.

If you restore the page to draft, then you can set up those links in order to improve the content, but when you intend to move the page to the article, please follow the instructions recorded in WP:Draft. As long as this page is an article, I don't agree that these links exist on that page. Rastinition (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but from the rule, it's stated as long as the user was auto- verified, then they could move page to article without having to be reviewed. That is all I have done. I can make changes now as long as you remove the deletion status and undo your changes. I get where you're coming from, but for us to remove this links, you need to undo your changes because now I am confused as to which we have to change and which you added. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of the sources that come from "unreliable" are being used because they are the official account of the person/company we are referring to. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to try to restore unreliable sources, or H:NOWIKI, I'm not going to try to hurt the wiki because of your request. Rastinition (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure remove those links, but still the point of this discussion is the deletion. I still haven't gotten your answer for that other than Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation's adaption having bit of similarities. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main editor of the page is your account, and I confirmed with you that the Chinese name of that page is 魔道祖师, right? Because you also have activity records in Mo Dao Zu Shi ,I think you also checked the Chinese name of Mo Dao Zu Shi is 魔道祖师, right? When the Chinese names are exactly the same, you want me to believe that they have completely different themes and content?

But I quess what you actually mean is that these two pages should be reserved the pages with the names Mo Dao Zu Shi (animation) and Mo Dao Zu Shi (novel), right? Rastinition (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have same name and but unless you have actually read the original novel and watched the donghua in its entirety, how would you be able to see the differences? The theme is the same but due to the page " Mo Dao Zu Shi" being a adaption, it changed some plots that makes it differ from the original novel.

The novel is an explicit boy's love novel but the due to the nature of China, the donghua , ( Mo Dao Zu Shi the page) is censored. Due to this there is differences in plots. Having both of them in the same page will present conflicting plots. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes basically what i mean but I want the pages title to stay as it is right now. People are already familiar with these title and know which name will lead to what, so changing it now will just lead to more confusion. As you have already removed the unreliable links, I am sure that should to okay? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still there? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just noticed it right now but our page has been reviewed properly and went through the process, so I am not sure why you're claiming otherwise. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 pages are reserved after being renamed Mo Dao Zu Shi (novel) and Mo Dao Zu Shi (animation).
Merge the page to Mo Dao Zu Shi, the page uses novel as the main content, and animation uses == animation == to set in the merged page Mo Dao Zu Shi.

I tend to choose one of these two. I should not change my mind again.2 is the original idea, 1 is the idea added after confirming the Chinese name.

Rastinition (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you want me to rename the two pages Mo Dao Zu Shi (novel) and Mo Dao Zu Shi (animation)? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's choose one of the two options right? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weill you be okay with both of them being Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation but with (novel) and (animation). We want to use these names as these are the name being used to promote these works internationally. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK Rastinition (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am expressing my own personal opinion.You don't have to agree with me.But if you agree with part of my opinion, this page can be closed or archived by other accounts in a shorter time.

This page will not be closed or archived by me. Rastinition (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please reply to the message sent right now so we can put this behind us and move on. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reply. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be okay with both of them being Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation but with (novel) and (animation). We want to use these names as these are the name being used to promote these works internationally. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still there? Shadowyblue09 (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the donghua and the novel are both clearly notable on their own, and there is so much information on both that including them in a single page will make the page cluttered and more difficult to organize and navigate. This discussion should be happening on the respective Talk pages. Chagropango (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am having this discussion for this page. As this is the deletion discussion page. I have been saying the same thing, they both have too much information, some which contradict each other, but they aren't replying anymore so I think their option is the final Shadowyblue09 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be logging off for now. I hope we can reach an agreement. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and China. Jumpytoo Talk 08:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems to only want to WP:MERGE the two articles together, which is not done through AfD. I note that the other article the nom noted is also AfD'ed by the nom for the same reason, which can lead to major inconsistencies (what if the consensus on each AfD is to keep only the other one?). Jumpytoo Talk 08:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The novel and the donghua has enough difference in plot and also in in their own medium based- details (donghua page as info on OSTs, VAs, artists and etc.) that wouldn't make sense to merge into one single page. This is enough to warrant them their own separate page. Also, as people have stated above, it will lead to inconsistencies and difficulties navigating. KanaWX (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure if bolded keep is important so coming back to do that. My points are above. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As many have said before, while the novel name for the animation and the Donghua (animation) are the same name, the animation is largely different from the novel, which really does warrant it's own page (Just as how the Untamed is it's own page, yet, it's an adaption of MDZS, but due to the large amount of differences between the two, it has a separate page which information that can't be added to the novel page without it being cluttered up with conflicting information.) Also, in terms of "Unreliable sources" I get how social medias are not always a reliable source, however, many companies and celebrities have official accounts they use to announce key information, such as release dates, little facts here and there, and promotional stuff. For MDZS, the author herself (MXTX), as well as the official teams that are responsible for some of the various adaptations have official accounts they use for announcing information and promoting stuff. Even many reputable news agencies have social media accounts. So, before deleting citations, please look at the context of the links to see if they are official. Once again, this kind of thing of having different adaptations have their own page if there's significant amount of information and such that would otherwise clutter up a page, a page of its own would be created with references to it's overview page and vice versa. So no, I don't support the two pages being merged, and should be kept the way they are. Gsmith1030 (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

)Also, just to note. I have no affiliation with the main editors of the page, nor do I know them in person (or otherwise in any other way, and was not told to say what I was saying. I'm just simply adding on what others were saying in regards to this page. I most likely will not be making further contributions to this page (this discussion page) unless I feel it's needed. Gsmith1030 08:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsmith1030 (talk • contribs)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Gsmith1030 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Comment offwiki canvassing is going on [9] archive [10] archive closers should carefully assess participants to check if they are SPAs/likely to have been canvassed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The twitter account behind the canvassing self-identifies as one of the authors of the article [11] archive. Most of the current participants are presumably part of the friend group that created the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Exo, don't pretend I can't read what you are saying [12]. First off, I'm not a "mod", second WP:CANVASSING is a policy, and sending clearly biased off-wiki notifications is a clear violation of it. If you weren't a coward you'd reveal what you're actual Wikipedia account was and respond to me here. I have no opinions on the merits of this AfD, but canvassing is never an appropriate response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: MDZS itself is certainly a notable novel, so deletion is definitely out of the question; if the articles are to be merged together, what needs to be done involves picking an article title to put everything under, and moving the content across, where applicable. However, I personally have zero opinion regarding whether the two articles should be merged, and if so, which title they should be merged under. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Dao Zu Shi[edit]

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

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

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

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

The theme of the page is the same as the Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation, these two pages should delete one of them or merge them. Rastinition (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the donghua and the novel are both clearly notable on their own, and there is so much information on both that including them in a single page will make the page cluttered and more difficult to organize and navigate. Chagropango (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, before logging off, I am in agreement with the person above me.

Raising this point again:

There are numerous differences between the original novel and the donghua, which is an adaption for it to share the same page.They both deserve their own pages,as having them under the same pages will make it contradictory. The original novel is uncensored and its plot reflect that while the the donghua in this page is under censorship so it is reflected in the plot.

Many other popular fiction have difference pages for the source material and its adaptions.A Song of Ice and Fire has its own page dedicated to the novel and there's a separate page for its TV show Games of Throne. Same with Tolkien's books and adaptions.What makes their pages different then ours? They should also be considered if going by your view. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems to only want to WP:MERGE the two articles together, which is not done through AfD. I note that the other article the nom noted is also AfD'ed by the nom for the same reason, which can lead to major inconsistencies (what if the consensus on each AfD is to keep only the other one?). Jumpytoo Talk 08:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The novel and the donghua has enough difference in plot and also in in their own medium based- details (donghua page as info on OSTs, VAs, artists and etc.) that wouldn't make sense to merge into one single page. This is enough to warrant them their own separate page. Also, as people have stated above, it will lead to inconsistencies and difficulties navigating. KanaWX (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure if bolded keep is important so coming back to do that. Shadowyblue09 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coming here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation, I'd like to point out that AfD is the discussion venue for deletion, and not content issues such as merging or reference cross-checking. If there are content issues, they should be resolved via the article talk page, and not through AfD. Given that both the novel and the animation meet WP:GNG, and the nominator mentions content merging as the primary reason for this AfD nomination, I'm inclined to believe that this is not exactly an appropriate use of AfD. There are no grounds for article deletion, which is the purpose of raising AfD discussions. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:08, 21 November 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 Sara García. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mi madre adorada[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability. IMDb is not sufficient. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Sara García. The current single link to IMDb is obviously inadequate, there are lots of hits on Books about differing subjects, (e.g., this book discussing various subjects of the same name in the 1870s), however, references about this film are all trivial mentions, 1, 2, 3. A Newspaper.com search also found few results, so this fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. VickKiang (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sara Garcia, the star of this movie. Joyous! | Talk 02:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sara Garcia under [[13]] Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xupl[edit]

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

This product no longer exists nice (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coment see WP:Notability does not degrade over time. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't stand up to any notability standard. It has multiple issues that can no longer even be improved because the product doesn't exist and the links are all broken. There are no reliable sources that reference it and even archive.org has no reference to it. nice (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is/was this ever widely used? I can't find much about it. Joyous! | Talk 02:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. The project was abandoned before it ever became stable. It's been sitting idle and unfinished for years. nice (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the reason given by the nominator was not valid, this subject appears to be non-notable. At most, this article could be condensed to a sub-section in XML but I doubt even that is necessary. Chagropango (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any sources that would meet WP:GNG. ProofRobust 12:12, 19 November 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 02:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regenestem[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Article started in 2016 by a SPA, using sources that contain almost exclusively passing mentions. NoonIcarus (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Medicine. NoonIcarus (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage in sources is only trivial and not significant, not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Additionally, I question the independence of some of these sources. ProofRobust 12:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 23 November 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 Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. The source assessment by Sirdog is persuasive and remains unrebutted. Sandstein 09:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dervo Sejdić[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable, the majority of the content is already mentioned in Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Any articles in Bosnian might be of some help. Mooonswimmer 02:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the person is from a persecuted Roma community. Coverage exists like [14], this source calls him a prominent Roma leader, [15], [16], [17], [18]. There are about 500 results, just in Google News, and then ton of books - easy WP:GNG pass. 31.205.13.161 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep about the same level of an article on the Italian wiki, with some links mentioned above. This needs a rewrite though. Oaktree b (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. I've prepared a source assessment table (note I used Google Translate for non-English sources), and I'm not finding too much more aside from these. His real notable quality is his involvement in the constitution case but doesn't seem to be notable outside of that, I don't think an article is warranted here. More than happy to be proven wrong, though. —Sirdog (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirdog
https://radiosarajevo.ba/vijesti/bosna-i-hercegovina/sejdic-posveceni-smo-provedbi-svih-presuda-suda-za-ljudska-prava-iz-strazbura/469817	No editorial policies (that I can find), no prior discussion at WP:RSP, authors aren't declared. What pushes me to no is that when I tilt my head it comes off across as a press release.		✘ No
https://radiosarajevo.ba/vijesti/bosna-i-hercegovina/dervo-sejdic-postao-novi-clan-sdp-a/450385	? No editorial policies (that I can find), no prior discussion at WP:RSP, authors aren't declared, routine coverage of a political event		✘ No
https://www.jta.org/2022/07/27/global/in-bosnia-and-herzegovina-a-potential-constitution-change-could-further-distance-jews-from-political-representation		Single quoted mention	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20091006232911/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090694.html	From Reuters	Single quoted mention	✘ No
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/discrimination-in-bih-still-alive-says-appellant-in-12-year-old-echr-case/	Basically regurgitation of press release with little to no analysis/commentary from Euractiv		✘ No
https://www.slobodna-bosna.ba/vijest/261553/dervo_sejdic_odluchio_pozivam_gradjane_bosne_i_hercegovine_da_svoju_moc_i_odluchnost_iskoriste_na_oktobarskim_izborima_glasajuci_za.html	Way too promotional and partisan in language; is a massive quote, really	~ I suppose it could be seen as SIGCOV that basically the entire page is a massive quotation...	✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/4/29/why-bosnia-is-still-not-a-democracy	Opinion piece	Not mentioned at all aside from image caption or in relation to the case he is party to	✘ No
https://ba.n1info.com/vijesti/dervo-sejdic-uputio-svoj-prijedlog-za-izmjene-ustava-i-izbornog-zakona-bih/	Basic regurgitation of the document with solely just quoting	~ It's about the law again and what he says about it; but it isn't about him	✘ No
https://ba.n1info.com/english/news/dervo-sejdic-who-successfully-sued-bih-proposes-changes-to-election-law/			✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with —Sirdog 's assessment; the subject on his own is not notable, but his involvement in Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina is. Outside of this coverage there is not enough information to even justify a stand alone article. Chagropango (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is no indication of WP:SIGCOV with this individual right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel M. Albrizio[edit]

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

Reviewed through NPP - article on an utterly non-notable businessman sourced only to primary sources, no valid sources found through WP:BEFORE. Spicy (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Massachusetts. Spicy (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utterly non-notable guy, fails the GNG going away -- all the sources are primary or (like all those legal case links) do not count towards notability. Meets no notability criteria. It doesn't help that the article creator has been under suspicion of using multiple accounts and being an undisclosed paid editor. Ravenswing 02:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like a vanity piece and the only media coverage I can find of him are in the New York Weekly and the Baltimore Post Examiner. I'm not sure that coverage in these publications could not be bought. Even if it can't, it's still not enough to be described as WP:SIGCOV. Chagropango (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear-cut WP:GNG fail. Just a ROTM businessman. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. If you look at the companies he has founded and the various cases that he has been mentioned in, it is clear that Albrizio is certainly not a "round of the mill" businessman. Additionally, he has been a major contributor to the Kennedy family's campaigns. With a significant presence in both the business world and the U.S. political scene, he is definitely not just another non-notable person. There are many similar biographies on Wikipedia where the subjects are just as notable as Albrizio, if not less so. Thus, I would strongly urge everyone to take a closer look at Albrizio's notability before placing a vote here. Mazamarkos (talk) 23:09, 23 November 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) Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 00:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Morreau[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPEOPLE. Sources given either don't meet WP:SIGCOV or aren't independent. This article is questionably WP:SIGCOV but it doesn't meet WP:V. Quick Google search shows no hits. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 00:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator—although I am still on-the-fence on whether or not it meets notability guidelines yet, I am withdrawing this nomination because the page is under construction and new sources could be added to establish notability. Willing to find more sources for the page to avoid future AfDs in the future. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 00:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Switzerland. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 00:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - consider withdrawing this AfD nomination Please consider withdrawing your nomination. You did not follow rules where new pages that are currently under construction and less than half an hour old should not be nominated for deletion. Highwayepiphany (talk) 00:42, 19 November 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!} 00:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rissberger[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPEOPLE. The first and second sources, which are the school's staff directory and Alan Rissberger's blog, are clearly not independent nor significant. Third source gives him a passing mention. Fourth source is a paper he wrote which doesn't establish notability. Quick Google search finds no other WP:V or WP:SIGCOV-satisfying sources. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 00:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 00:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article meet GNG, nor do any of the other sources which I found whilst searching.ProofRobust 01:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless they somehow acquire state or national-level media attention or win awards at those levels and pass WP:GNG, high school teachers are almost always non-notable. I see no evidence that this one is an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable, no state or national level recognition. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. No notability nor reliable sources can be seen. Timothytyy (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks WP:N and any WP:INDEPENDENT sources Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably should have been A7'd. Fails GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this should have been speedied under WP:A7. I think the AfD should probably also close earlier per WP:SNOW. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no special claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 23 November 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 Wiktionary:copium. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copium (Internet Meme)[edit]

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

Reviewed through NPP. Not a notable meme, most RS only mention it in passing. I'm not sure what "Dot Esports" is but the poor quality of this article and the heavily SEO'd title don't inspire confidence in the site's reliability. Spicy (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NWEB. No sources give it WP:SIGCOV. Sources give it passing mentions only. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 00:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:NOTDICT (slang); already exists at wiktionary:copium. Uhai (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability guidelines, only trivial mentions. ProofRobust 01:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Uhai said, wiktionary:copium exists. Perhaps a soft redirect there may work. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge and redirect. This appears to be a prime example of the difficulty of determining internet notability versus traditional notability. This term has huge circulation on the internet and has been the subject of quite a bit of independent commentary and analysis (in addition to the referenced sources, see this article). The current article adds little value beyond the current Wiktionary entry, but it could easily be expanded to include more information on the history and usage of the term. There should really be some kind of metric other than mentions in major publications, because if a term is appearing millions of times on social media, it is verifiably notable even if the documentation of it is lacking in media coverage (although in the case of copium, I think it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV according to existing standards). This is actually just a variant of the emergence of increasingly common use of the word "cope" as a noun, which has spread rapidly in recent years in youth and internet subcultures. Another possibility might be to include this and similar terms (like those mentioned in this article) on another page, maybe Internet Slang or something similar. If this article is kept as a stub, there may very well be more content to add in the coming months and years, however I acknowledge that this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Chagropango (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary:copium or Weak Keep, I was able to find 2 SIGCOV of copium, but not too sure if it can surpass WP:NOTDICT:

Zimmer, Benjamin; Wright, Kelly E.; Hughes, Brianne; Carson, Charles E. (2022-05-01). "Among the New Words". American Speech. 97 (2): 204. doi:10.1215/00031283-9940564. ISSN 0003-1283.
Gravley, Garrett. "Don't Worry About a Civil War. There's a Faux Opium War Happening Online". Dallas Observer. Retrieved 2022-11-19.

If an article on the "cope" internet slang existed, that would be the best AtD as it could cover this variant well, but it doesn't so redirecting to Wiktionary is the best option here. Happy to reevaluate an improved article however. Jumpytoo Talk 07:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article when I found the word "copium" being mentioned again and again in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, admittedly on Twitter. More particular it is often used in the context of the grandstanding of the Russian media claiming they fight a heroic struggle agains evil

Example: https://twitter.com/Evaien5/status/1593996710606405634.

Example: https://twitter.com/fakedavidmount/status/1568759960682795008

Example: https://twitter.com/LunariaTenebris/status/1591562542249377792

Better examples can probably be found.

Note in particular that due to the importance of this war, the use of the word "copium" will likely be of interest to historians.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia mentions copium only in the context of a moth species and an album of the wrapper Keak the Sneak neither of which is very helpful.

RogierBrussee (talk)

original creator of the page. RogierBrussee (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I had considered making this AfD myself when I saw the page. Sure, it's internet slang that gets used frequently, but it is not notable per Wiki standards. WPscatter ^t/_c 02:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect to wiktionary:copium: Not enough to pass WP:NWEB with the existing sources indicated above. That said, redirecting to its Wiktionary is the way to go. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Johnston, Holly (2022-11-18). "Iran: crowds cheer as Ayatollah Khomeini's ancestral home burns". The National. Retrieved 2022-11-19.

[2] Williams, Stuart. "Angry Funerals Spark New Protests In Iran". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2022-11-19.

[1]

[2]