Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 04 October 06 >

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 redirect to Birmingham New Street railway station. Article history will be left intact since there is substantial interest in merging content. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Junction, Birmingham[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, one source is a map book, the other is a historical source. Any sourced content could be moved to Birmingham New Street railway station. Rly junctions generally do not merit their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per G-13114 Rossonwy (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of sources on the WP:Library and Jstor. Such as this one [1] where the directory states the Grand Junction Railway was opened by an Act of Parliament in 1833. More mention of the junction here [2], saying it was realigned to make way for a new train line. Seems notable enough. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Comment. There appears to be a lot of hits for Grand Junction, Birmingham but most are just referring to Grand Junction Railway and not this junction. I'll keep searching ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per G-13114, although I could support deletion if cleanup is determined not to be possible. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. Note that G-13114 has made an entirely policy and guideline free argument, closer is required to disregard personal opinions which are not supported by policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All that came up of note was just referrals to the Grand Junction train line that ran through Birmingham, and not the Birmingham junction that is the subject of the article. Strange that one of the busiest junctions in the UK would not have more sources. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm just not seeing much here that produces a claim to notability: a comparison with results for Zoo Junction is instructive. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that the more modern term for the junction is Proof House Junction that might be why User:The Night Watch was having trouble finding sources for it. There's coverage of it Here for example. And this Map appears to confirm this, although the layout is complicated, and it could be said to consist of several separate junctions, there's a historical page about it Here. However, as it is the meeting place of six railway lines, including three main lines, it's a nationally important piece of infrastructure, the notion that it isn't significant, is plainly ludicrous. G-13114 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @G-13114 When did the junction change its name to proof house? There’s a decent amount of coverage, but I just want to make sure this is the right junction. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @G-13114 It's not clear to me that Grand Junction, Birmingham and Proof House Junction are the same based on the text of the article which makes it seem like they are adjacent to one another. Am I misunderanding the article? Regardless, if the current term is Proof House Junction shouldn't the article itself be titled Proof House Junction and then in the history section connect the older name to the current one?4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure, I do know that Proof House Junction is the most common term for it, but it's possible that the complex layout is regarded as multiple junctions. I've added a notification at the UK rail wikiproject, and hopefully we'll be able to clear up the confusion. G-13114 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are two completely separate junctions. I refer you to Media:Birmingham & Bordesley RJD 7.jpg: start at Birmingham New Street and proceed eastwards along the red line. Proof House Junction is the first one that you come to, 61 chains out, where the line shown as "to Bushbury" diverges from the main London line. Continue east along the London line: the line from Curzon Street comes in 8 chains further on, and now you are on the original London & Birmingham Railway's line. Another 8 chains further out, we have two green lines going off on the right: one to Derby and one to Bristol - the junction where these diverge from the London line is Grand Junction. So Proof House Junction and Grand Junction are 16 chains (352 yards) apart. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since these appear to be two separate junctions, and there is a lack of sourcing for this one, my delete !vote stands. I understand this is one of the busiest junctions in the country, but I'm not sure if there is adequate sourcing to support the article. Perhaps a new article on Proof House Junction can be created with the available material. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting as questions have arisen about whether or not this junction also went by the name Proof House Junction and sources can be found under that title instead.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per G-13114 TITANOSAURUS 23:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect' to Birmingham New Street railway station. Fails WP:SIGCOV per the analysis by the nominator. Note to closer, the keep voters are all saying keep per G-13114, but G-13114 has not made a policy based argument for keeping the article. At this point, nobody has actually addressed the nominator's concerns about the lack of independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge Fails WP:GNG so it isn't independently notable, I've googled and I can't find additional sources which haven't already been brought up. Note that 4meter4 is correct, G-13114 has made an argument without any basis in policy or guideline so the closer is required to disregard it (and any editors who invoke it without providing a policy or guideline based argument). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, you have cast two votes, please cross one of them out. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Oops you're right! I meant to strike the first one when I updated from Delete to Delete/merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 12 October 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 Fort William railway station. Legoktm (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fort William Junction[edit]

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

Suggest sourced content be merged into the main station article. Clearly fails WP:GNG in itself, as the article relies on two books, both over 30 years old. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • This appears to be a merge discussion so shouldn't be in articles for deletion. The age of the book sources is irrelevant. Garuda3 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, not finding any sources which indicate notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Seems to be another routine junction. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect might be the best way forward. I do not think the junction is notable enough to have an article of its own, but there is some material here that could go on the West Highland Line article and a redirect to that article might make sense. Dunarc (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 5 October 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 the junction isn't notable. If someone needs the history to merge, or to create an article on the crash, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arkleston Junction[edit]

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

Relies entirely on two inline references (one from 8 years ago, the other 13), and clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, along with its 'sister article', Shields Junction. Rly junctions almost never warrant their own article. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, age of cites is irrelevant. Rossonwy (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not seeing sources which meet WP:GNG and I can't find them online either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added sources and info on a crash that occurred here that resulted in one death and 96 injuries. The rationale is rather flawed in that it appears to dismiss sources because of their age. Garuda3 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. The crash doesn't make the junction notable, because notability is not inherited. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you propose that verifiable information be merged? Garuda3 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Paisley Gilmour Street railway station is only a mile away...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Make an article on the collision? Only the present use section even has a single citation besides the stuff on the collision. And not everything that is verifiable is automatically worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not obligated to propose a merge target, either. Just because you think nothing should ever be deleted doesn't mean the rest of the community shares that viewpoint. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eutropical subsea[edit]

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

I can find no evidence these terms are used in the scientific literature, or even evidence that "subsea" is ever used as a noun (apparently referring to part of a sea). If kept, they should be merged together under Subsea (waterbody) or something; if deleted, Subsea (technology) should be moved back to Subsea, which currently incorrectly redirects to the disambiguated title. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "subsea" is used extensively in two articles with the same primary editor, Okeechobean Sea and Choctaw Sea. I am not sure how strongly the cited references support the use of the term, however. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no uses whatsoever of this term except by Petuch. Given that the article was originally used as a coatrack for his vita, this looks like an attempt of promoting the term on WP prior to acceptance by anyone else. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does this even exist? Ploreky (Got any problem?) 11:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC+8)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the Soul of the Nation speech[edit]

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

The only current speeches by President Biden with wikipedia pages are his inagural adresss, his first adresss to a Joint session of Congress, and his first State of the Union. All of these were important presidential remarks covered nationally. This speech, while talked about, was not different than any other speech than Biden gave, it was not covered nationally.[1] Esolo5002 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. What channels it aired on live don't really affect the speech's notability. The speech itself has been covered by national (see sources cited in the article) and international (Guardian, BBC) sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But every speech made by the President is going to have coverage, the question if the speech was anything other than routine? Esolo5002 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The article needs work but it is plainly notable. --Pokelova (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – "This speech, while talked about, was not different than any other speech than Biden gave, it was not covered nationally." Is grossly incorrect to the point of being disingenuous. Primetime coverage discussed in the media internationally. More sources and prose are possible, but the article meets notability standards without their addition. Putting this all in other articles would bloat them.Outdatedpizza (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's notable, but needs some work. More sources would help this article well. Covered by international and national sources. Nascar9919 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would be routine coverage if the coverage is just "Joe Biden gave a speech". But given the existence of sources that outright analyze or contextualize the speech's contents, it's not routine coverage. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Firefangledfeathers, and others. WP:RS coverage exceeds routine coverage. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More sources will expand the page, and its significance will likely grow as American history further unfolds. Kirby777 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's not about coverage, it's about content and the content of this speech is clear: "Donald Trump and his MAGA-Republican cohort are taking an active role in overthrowing American democracy." Kunanjaada (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You got it backwards. To be considered notable for Wikipedia, something needs to be widely covered. Curbon7 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhushita Ahuja (author)[edit]

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

To early. No notable enough Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:10, 5 October 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 Education in Norwalk, Connecticut. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Friends School[edit]

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

Contested PROD; non-notable private pre-school whose only claim to fame were plans of buying and renovating the White Barn Theatre. No actual significant coverage of the school was found. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edogbo Anthony[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, nothing here makes the subject notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please, the subject is a notable personality in Kogi State considering his young age and the position he occupies in the government at that age. Cited references are reliable and reputable newspapers in Nigeria. Onoja1 (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onoja1 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Onoja1 (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The one claim that might qualify him for notability is not backed up by a secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Skynxnex (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Special assistant to a digital whathaveyou sounds impressive, but it's not a ministerial position, it's a civil servant. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good Morning.
    He is also the National Coordinator of a political group and has enjoyed wide media coverage. He has been featured on AIT, Channels, and National Newspapers like Vanguard, The Nation, Sun, and even Guardian which is the most reputable newspaper in Nigeria. Onoja1 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a senior special assistant to a governor is not a civil servant. It is a political appointment that comes with the administration in power. It is different from civil service. Thank you. Onoja1 (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Senior special assistant is a senior civil servant then. Nothing notable, still long way off from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. The page is important for young aspiring leaders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twikipe (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC) — Twikipe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sock vote Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have to do more than be aspiring to earn a page here. We need reliable, extensive coverage of them. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule of thumb is anybody described as "aspiring" has their article deleted, because they aren't notable yet. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Kanatas[edit]

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

Astrology book author with 1 book in credit that is not a notable book either. Article only has non notable fringe theories from the author. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, The greek version of his bio was deleted 10 years ago. Venkat TL (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Astrology, Science, and Greece. Venkat TL (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Not seeing any actual sources here or significant claim to notability. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bottom-of-barrel-scraped refs, insufficient notability as an author or a scientist. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No doubt a self-promotional article. There is not a single source in Greek to support, even slightly, a claim for notability for either the author, or their only book (by a completely unknown publishing house = almost certainly a self-publication). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:37, 8 October 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. Ignoring the comments by accounts blocked for sockpuppetry, there is clear consensus to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugging Face[edit]

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

Not reliable article, not enough independent sources for WP:COMP Bigneeerman (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources I've found. To be completed.

PAC2 (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, indeed does not appear to be notable. --不和の林檎 (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Huggingface has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. See the list of sources above. I think it satisfies WP:ORGCRITE. PAC2 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with PAC2, Huggingface has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. See the list of sources above. I think it satisfies WP:ORGCRITE. Minimax Regret (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SERIESA. The financial history of the company is irrelevant. FalconK (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A $2 billion valuation is pretty relevant. Dandv 05:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in our guidelines/policies does it say that valuations are considered for notability? (Hint: It doesn't). HighKing++ 14:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Deleting the article now only means it will be recreated later, when Hugging Face will (doubtlessly for anyone in NLP) receive more WP:RS coverage. Reliable sources lag behind community traction for any open source project. -- Dandv 05:07, 11 October 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 Sleeping Rough in Port-au-Prince. Legoktm (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Christopher Kovats-Bernat[edit]

I am the subject of this article (and can verify this) and do not wish to have this page. I do not believe that I meet the standards of a noteworthy person. Please consider deleting this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor0108004 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The suggestion to merge to Sleeping Rough in Port-au-Prince is puzzling given that this is a redirect with no history. There is no article to merge to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I said above that an article on the book would probably be justified, but that article should be written from scratch. I see no content here that needs to be merged to it. I see no reason to doubt that the nominator is the subject, and many reasons (look at the article history) to believe it, but if anyone needs more proof they should ask him for it, rather than just cast doubt here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sleeping Rough in Port-au-Prince. Some information here is salvageable, the author may become notable one day assuming they are not yet already, let's WP:PRESERVE this for later in the redirect's history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: I tried to close this AFD and there is some problem with the formatting and how it was set up which is not surprising since it was done by a new editor. And I've tried introducing some different template codes and previewed the page but it just made things worse. I use Twinkle to set up an AFD so I'm not familiar with how to fix this manually. I'm hoping a more knowledgeable closer can look this over later. Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    same issue and have reverted my close. FWIW, Redirect makes sense as that's how I was trying to close it. Star Mississippi 01:41, 13 October 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. No evidence of SIGCOV has been provided. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Johns[edit]

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

An article on a wartime Second Lieutenant and later schoolteacher. There are articles here on several of the subject's relatives, but notability is not inherited from them. Setting these aside, we have routine listings (Census, Kelly's Directory), which may also apply to the masonic listing volume, plus an Imperial War Museum "Lives of the First World War" timeline, and my searches are not finding better. The subject does not appear to meet biographical notability criteria, whether in his military, teaching or religious service. (Note that the previous AfD on a "Howard Johns" article was for a different person.) AllyD (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep His roles – as a Second Lieutenant and schoolmaster – do not meet biographical notability criteria, but this is moot because his job as a vicar and Master Mason garner mentions in many reliable and correlative independent sources (usually as some variation of 'H. S. Johns'). His career was intriguing – being that he was a senior Freemason and the appointed rector of two parishes in Oxfordshire. Despite the CoE's opposition to masonic clergymen, he was able to be quite successful in both. Annoyed-Briefs-in-Jenkins (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please identify some of those sources (preferably no more than three)? The ones in the article don't seem to confer notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The interest in this clergyman is that he was also a Freemason. I suspect that this is not all that unusual. The question is whether the intersection is notable and I am dubious whether it is, Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep multiple important roles and criteria for notability, relatives are irrelevant Jan Bonfires (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would repeat my plea for sources that I made above. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Per WP:MILPERSON there is no military-specific notability guideline, and WP:RELPEOPLE is not a guideline but a WikiProject-specific guideline, but this article's subject also fails that criteria. Despite what is mentioned above, there are no sources showing notability that I was able to find; sources exist but they aren't independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject (see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). While these are subjective the subject may be interesting (see WP:INTERESTING) and may have been successful (but see WP:LOCALFAME), but these aspects don't make the subject notable. - Aoidh (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments to keep are quite weak; neither addresses the notability of this subject directly, and the one attempt below to provide WP:SIGCOV does not succeed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Al-Ahli Club (Manama) season[edit]

2022–23 Al-Ahli Club (Manama) season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Club plays in the Bahraini Premier League which are not fully-professional. Same goes for Al-Hala SC. It does not include any citations furthermore. Sakiv (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HugoAcosta9 (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What?? Pure nonsense! Speak respectfully and don't deflect form the recent deletion nomination for useless articles you created. Will you create Bhutanese league club season articles next time? I was at the time working on Real Zaragoza articles and I didn't take anything from you. Try to take a break from Wikipedia because you are starting to make countless problems. Sakiv (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:VAGUEWAVE keep !vote makes a claim of meeting GNG without providing any sources Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Who says that a league needs to be "fully-professional" to have season articles? For example, some teams in the Irish league have their own season articles and according to the outdated list, it is not considered as a professional league. Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. If you have found some Irish seasons cited only to Soccerway, SofaScore etc. with no evidence of better coverage then please send them to AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Sources for what? They are a lot of sources that show the games of this team this season if that's what you need. Mwiqdoh (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you present some in this discussion? The only ones present in the article are Soccerway and SofaScore which are obviously insufficient Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: But what type of sources do you need? If you just need websites that show the games of the team this season, here are a few ([3][4][[5][6][7][8]). If you are not looking for sources for the games this season but something else, please tell me what you are looking for. Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mwiqdoh: significant prose coverage of the season from reliable sources such as newspapers or news websites. The sites you have linked are stats only and contain no meaningful prose whatsoever so do not meet GNG. Wikipedia is not a database nor is it just an indiscriminate list of football scores. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: The official Bahrain Football Association posts on Al-Ahli and all other clubs on Instagram and Twitter ([9][10]). Also, on the official Bahraini FA website, they have a section for Al-Ahli ([11]) Here are the regulations and schedules for the Bahraini competitions ([12]). Here are news articles (this page is a list of the news article, click on the titles to get sent to that article's link.) ([13]) Is this what you're looking for? Mwiqdoh (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these show significant coverage about the 2022–23 Al-Ahli Club (Manama) season and none are from independent newspapers. Source analysis and delete recommendation to follow below. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not checked them for suitability, but it's news articles and the like that will be used to establish notability. The stuff from the Bahrain FA isn't useful in establishing notability, because the FA and the league are highly connected.
It's really important that you understand what Wikipedia means about notability and significant coverage. I strongly recommend reading and understanding this page because at the moment, you seem to be under the misapprehension that it's enough to simply provide evidence of something happening/existing. If you need further help, feel free to ask on my talk page. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We need to see some significant coverage to indicate the article meets GNG. At the moment, there are only database sources which are not enough. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - strongest possible delete per my source analysis below Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.flashscore.info/team/al-ahli/tCs21SDo/ Yes ? No Sports stats, no prose - FlashScore is a database website with very low standards for inclusion ✘ No
https://www.sofascore.com/team/football/al-ahli-manama/45471 Yes ? No Sports stats, no prose - I have already mentioned previously that SofaScore is unacceptable in a notability discussion ✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/teams/bahrain/al-ahli-manama/3616/ Yes Yes No Sports stats, no prose - Soccerway is regularly dismissed at AfD ✘ No
https://www.soccer24.com/team/al-ahli/tCs21SDo/ Yes ? No Sports stats, no prose ✘ No
https://oddspedia.com/football/teams/al-ahli-manama-9160 Yes No No Sports stats, no prose - also a betting site with limited editorial oversight ✘ No
https://www.livescore.in/team/al-ahli/tCs21SDo/ Yes ? No Sports stats, no prose ✘ No
https://www.instagram.com/bahrainfa/ No Account is run by the Bahraini FA No Instagram is social media so not reliable No Content does not show significant detail about Al-Ahli ✘ No
https://twitter.com/BahrainFA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Escreen-name%3AbahrainFA%7Ctwcon%5Es2 No No Social media No As above ✘ No
https://bfa.bh/team/al-ahli-sports-club/ No Bahraini FA No No Content does not show significant detail about Al-Ahli ✘ No
https://bfa.bh/regulations/ No No No Rules and regulations, no focus on Al-Ahli ✘ No
https://bfa.bh/blog/page/3/ No Bahraini FA No Blog No Blog stories which have no significant detail about Al-Ahli's current season ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel White[edit]

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

Was on the Edmonton Eskimos for two months in the 2009 offseason (signed april 24, released june 12), but never played. There is very little coverage of him, with the most in-depth article I could find (besides a press release by one of his teams) being a single sentence long, and as a result he fails WP:GNG. If it still existed, he would have failed NGRIDIRON as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clarke Shillcock[edit]

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

Contested PROD (no rationale). Unable to find proper independent coverage through Google Search for full name and without middle name. Ovinus (talk) 17:53, 5 October 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! 17:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Aslett[edit]

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

Notability is under question per WP:GNG and anybio. Too many cut-n-paste phrases from a corporate website Driodr (talk) 17:02, 5 October 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Adler (executive)[edit]

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

Spam with no RS Driodr (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please withdraw my nomination. notable per Notability_(academics)#C3 Driodr (talk) 17:00, 5 October 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! 17:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anaïs Weyer[edit]

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

Article about footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Weyer is a semi-pro with just one international match. The only online English-, French-, German- or Luxembourgish-language coverage is trivial, including transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 16:14, 5 October 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! 17:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slavica alphabet[edit]

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

I happened to find this today, marked for zero citations since 2014 (but actually in existence since 2007), so I did a fair few web searches trying to find e.g. 'slavica 1987 igić -wiki', and got practically nothing (the name also coincides with a relatively popular given name). I don't think a separate article is warranted for an apparent scholarly work that has so little scholarly or real-world coverage. The author's article also has a bunch of cleanup tags... Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have formatted some of the references in the article text and what I found elsewhere. The article mentions Croatian newspapers. I think they will be hard to find online and, besides, I haven't tried to check Serbo-Croatian-language text. Some of what I find seems written by Igic himself. Novoslovnica mentions Slavica but seems self-published. --Error (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I checked those three and they're either from the author himself or a passing mention, and mostly outside of language-related fields as well. That's comparable to what I was able to find in Croatian sources myself. IOW it's not a lot. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An exotic proposal that got nowhere and, even if it gathered some press attention at the time, it quickly withered away. Fails WP:LASTING importance. No such user (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Yates[edit]

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

In accordance with WP:POLITICIAN, being an unelected candidate doesn't equate to notability. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 14:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Haueirlan (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: She is only a candidate not a winner. Contributor008 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this neither establishes preexisting notability for other reasons besides a candidacy, nor demonstrates any credible reason why his unsuccessful candidacy should be seen as a special case of markedly greater notability than everybody else's unsuccessful candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, unelected candidate. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I do agree with Delete voters. Candidate in elections does not make notability. Yüsiacı (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Mateer[edit]

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

Refbombed article with patchy sourcing (at best), profiling YouTuber and stood up on mostly non-RS references, created by SPA. Take out social, passing mentions, usage of his Sandy coverage by MSM and links to his own platform and you fail WP:GNG with brio. NOTE now at John Mateer (filmmaker) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{hidden | headerstyle = background: #ccccff; font-size: 110%; | header = Really long rationale by the article creator | content =:Okay. If you have to say “take out this, this & this and it would be subject to deletion” … isn’t that you blatantly stating that it is not subject to deletion? Category for “YouTuber” was removed. The subject of the article is listed as a filmmaker. He has been featured in films as well as worked as the cinematographer on others. I referenced his film production company that he started to further explain.

I would’ve appreciated the ability to clean up the over-sourcing. Your initial statement points to a premature nomination for deletion.
Shortcuts


I went on to read WP:SPA and totally get what you are saying. I didn’t think about that and I will broaden my focus immediately. I didn’t realize how that could come across. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the SPA comment, I give you that. It was just how I wanted to go about my first article. I was going to make it, have it reviewed, learn more about the process and then go on to create more. I apologize if this seem like a SPA, but I had only begun editing the page on the 29th of September. I have a list of other topics I want to write about. I specifically write about the New York film scene because I live in New York myself and am aware of these people. John Mateer stood out for his bizarre story. There’s still so much more to include. I apologize for the heavy defense. I just have been working so hard on it, it took me by suripise. I requested a peer edit and now it’s getting trashed. I would’ve loved feedback. This is just disheartening.

I’ll give it my best though:

WP:BASIC & WP:NBASIC state the following: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”


This is a list I could compile for you now to show you that the subject indeed meets the criteria, and that this nomination should be revoked in favor for an editing suggestion.

"The Fordham Ram" (USA), 18 January 2021, by: Jaclyn Weiner, "Updating Gay Hate Crime Legislation"

"MediaUpdate.co.za" (South Africa), 14 November 2012, "Superstorm New York: What Really Happened"

"PRNewswire" (USA), 12 November 2012, "National Geographic Channel To Air First In-Depth Cable Documentary On Wrath And Destruction Of Hurricane Sandy In Superstorm 2012"

"Philly Voice" (USA), 15 November 2019, by: Daniel Craig, "Man says he was beaten by PSU fraternity member because he's gay"

"Opposing Views" (USA), 8 March 2018, by: Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, "'Don't Let A Frat Guy Know That You're Gay': Teen Allegedly Beaten Up At Penn State"

"Onward State" (USA), 15 October 2015, by: Megan Fleming, "Penn State Altoona Student Charged Following Alleged Homophobic Assault"

"StateCollege.com" (USA), 15 October 2015, by: Zach Berger, "Penn State Student Charged in Alleged Anti-Gay Assault"

"The Underground" (USA), 12 October 2015, by: Adam Tidball, "Mateer's Assault and Homophobia at Penn State"

"Seventeen" (USA), 8 October 2015, by: Elizabeth Denton, "Gay Teen Brutally Attacked Outside a Penn State Frat House"

"Total Frat Move" (USA), 8 October 2015, by: Harrison Lee, "Viral Tweet Accuses PSU Fraternity Member Of Beating Guy Up For Being Gay, Police Find Suspect Isn't Actually In Fraternity"

"Logo TV" (USA), 7 October 2015, by: Matthew Tharrett, "GAY TEEN VICIOUSLY BEATEN AT PENN STATE AFTER REVEALING HE IS GAY"

"Teen Vogue" (USA), 7 October 2015, by: Emma Sarran Webster, "This Teen Was Beaten Outside a Penn State Frat House After Revealing That He's Gay"

"Gay Star News" (USA), 7 October 2015, "Gay college student visiting Penn State comes out outside fraternity house, gets beaten"

"COED" (USA), 7 October 2015, by: Alexa Lyons, "Teen Claims PSU Student Assaulted Him For Being Gay"

"Metro" (USA), 6 October 2015, by: Matthew Lee, "Man claims he was gay bashed by Penn State frat guy"

"NY Daily News" (USA), 6 October 2015, by: Melissa Chan, "Long Island teen claims Penn State fraternity member beat him for being gay: 'Don't let a frat guy know that you're gay'"

"Edge" (USA), 6 October 2015, "NY Teen Says Penn State Frat Member Beat Him Over Sexuality"

"Towleroad" (USA), 6 October 2015, by: Ande Towle, "Police Investigating Alleged Anti-Gay Assault of Man at Penn State University"

"Pink News" (UK), 6 October 2015, by: JOSEPH MCCORMICK, "Police investigate alleged assault on college teen by 'frat member'"

"Fox 5 New York" (USA), 5 October 2015, "Police investigate possible anti-gay beating"

"The Tab" (USA), 5 October 2015, "Gay man allegedly beaten in North Burrowes assault"

"Inside Edition" (USA), 4 October 2015, by: IE Staff, "Police Investigate After Teen Says He Was Assaulted at Penn State University For Being Gay"

"Channel Guide Magazine" (USA), 16 June 2013, by: Barb Oates, "Long Island Medium Season 4 recap of "Bouffants and Bingo""

"CBS 6" (USA), 2 November 2012, by: Sandi Cauley, "Trees fall in NY neighborhood as Sandy comes ashore"

"Forbes" (USA), 2 November 2012, by: Kashmir Hill, "Sandy Through The Eyes of YouTube and a Drone: Falling Trees, Fires and Flooding"

"CNET" (USA), 31 October 2012, by: Chris Matyszczyk, "Sandy video: Falling trees. Fire. 'Apocalypse'"

"Aristegui Noticias" (Mexico), 31 October 2012, "'Frankenstorm' se llevó hasta los árboles en EU"

"Pirman" (Spain), 31 October 2012, "Esto es el 'Apocalipsis'. Sandy videos: Caída de árboles. Fuego. Olas gigantes."

"Klix" (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 30 October 2012, "Pogledajte s kakvom lakocom uragan Sandy cupa drvece"

"BostInno" (USA), 30 October 2012, by: Sam Dwyer, "'Hurricane Sandy 3 Trees Fall and Fire' Becomes Next Double Rainbow Guy"

"Mashable" (USA), 30 October 2012, by: Stephanie Haberman, "'This Is the Apocalypse' Video Shows Sandy Destruction"

4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE NOTE: You are linking to search results for “John Thomas Mateer”.. as clear in his page on IMDb, most of — if not ALL of his last titles are credited “John Mateer.”

It has his included his middle name in his IMDb, and the page John Mateer was already taken, so I went with middle name included. If you are looking for sources while searching for “John Thomas Mateer,” you are unlikely to find the same amount of information as you would if you typed in “John Mateer” followed by whatever you want to know.

Just wanted to share this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • See WP:NCPDAB. A better way to disambiguate him would be to have called the article John Mateer (podcaster) or something like that, as I assume that it is more likely that people will recognize him by his occupation than by his middle name. If this article winds up being kept, perhaps it should be moved there instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21845/1/Fuchs_Tanja.pdf (Pages 166-168) scholarly source titled “Violence against Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals - Social Media Activism in the Obama Era in the Light of Johan Galtung’s Violence Triangle”


https://www.google.com/search?q=john+mateer+penn+state+assault&client=safari&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ALiCzsb5iOjeSjEOZeNzO2qtLQgyNE8AJQ%3A1664980819402&ei=U5c9Y-32F8mhptQP0L2zsAc&oq=john+mateer+penn+state+assault&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwuAED-AEBMgUQIRigAcICCBAAGKIEGLADwgIEECMYJ8ICBRAhGKsCkAYESJohUPwFWI4fcAB4AMgBAJABAJgBlAGgAewQqgEFMTAuMTHiAwQgQRgBiAYB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp&safari_group=9#ip=1

Try that instead for the Penn State situation. That looks heavily sourced to me.

Included sources to articles by Teen Vogue, Philly Voice, NY Daily News, Inside Edition and others speaking about Mateer's viral assault.

https://www.seventeen.com/life/school/news/a34610/this-is-horrible-gay-teen-brutally-assaulted-outside-a-penn-state-frat-house/

https://www.insideedition.com/12240-police-investigate-after-teen-says-he-was-assaulted-at-penn-state-university-for-being-gay

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/gay-teen-assaulted-outside-frat-penn-state

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-claims-penn-state-frat-guy-attacked-gay-article-1.2386871


For the Hurricane Sandy Viral Video. The documentary I included in a source not only opens by calling MATEER’S video “world famous,” but he stars start to finish in the entire thing.

I included sources for the Hurricane Sandy event to televised interviews of Mateer with Katie Couric over the matter, I put a source from FORBES talking about MATEER’S footage.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22john+mateer%22+hurricane+sandy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&safari_group=9

Try this instead.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/11/02/sandy-through-the-eyes-of-youtube-and-a-drone-falling-trees-fires-and-flooding/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVQPqUbjkJo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWnBX_x2Md4 (this is the Weather Channels official YouTube channel)


https://www.fox5ny.com/news/police-investigate-possible-anti-gay-beating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused because with the exception of the scholarly source, which I will add, all of these were cited.

Forbes. Fox News. ABC. The Weather Channel. Teen Vogue. NY Daily News.

If these aren’t strong enough of sources, I am left very confused what the standard for a source is.

Perhaps tagging the article with a warning to clean up the sources and edit it better would’ve been suffice? I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that this article should be deleted. At the most, I’d say change the title to “John Mateer (filmmaker).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and now you've screwed up the entire AfD page. Sign your comments and don't go hacking at the main page please. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources are mostly unreliable and non-independent. Delete per WP:BIO1E. Haueirlan (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject does not land within the criteria of WP:BIO1E - as per the article where two events are heavily sourced with reliable and independent sources. Rough as the article may be, as per WP:INTROTODELETE, the article shouldn’t be nominated at all for deletion based on the need for cleanup. Subject meets all of the criteria for WP:GNG as well, which negates the listed nomination reason - even though the nominator stated in his nomination that the article almost doesn’t meet the WP:GNG criteria.. which means that it does and this whole nomination for deletion is a waste of time that could have been spent giving suggestions on cleaning up the article instead.. . and considering the standards set forth in WP:NOBITING, I feel like this was just an unnecessary and unwarranted insult on a newcomer rather than a genuine attempt at encouraging those new within the Wikipedia community to grow as editors.
    I have given my reasoning. My reasoning is backed by standards put in place by Wikipedia.
    • Keep
    4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - fixed spotty sources, removed information that lacked backing, and still what is left has sufficient citations that reference some of the strongest names in journalism (Forbes, ABC, The Inquirer, etc.) — I also included a PhD Dissertation in which the Penn State assault was analyzed.

I apologize for my mistake with the AfD page. I’m still learning. I was struggling to figure out how to sign and the bot was signing it for me. I figured that was okay.

4theloveofallthings (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - The nominator that put the article John Thomas Mateer up for deletion stated that if the article were missing certain things, that it would not meet WP:GNG, which initially sets strikingly clear understanding to how carefree this user is with posting AfD tags on new articles rather than attempting to provide constructive criticism. WP:NOBITING. But I thought I’d provide a list of all requirements set forth by WP:GNG that the nominator claims was almost not met by the article John Thomas Mateer — thus justifying tagging it for deletion discussion somehow.
  • 1. "Presumed" - the first guideline states that if there is significant coverage in reliable sources to the point it can be presumed NOT guaranteed that the subject warrants its own article — then it meets criteria #1 - Article References are not only sufficiently reliable (including articles dedicated entirely to the subject by the likes of Teen Vogue, Seventeen Magazine, PhillyVoice, The Weather Channel & CNN.. but valuable pieces of information can be found on the subject in other reliable sources included — from the likes of Forbes, ABC, National Geographic & BBC. Sources are varied. Some are news articles, magazine articles, direct video of the television broadcasts & documentaries Mateer was on, some info published by the subject himself.. but I have also included a German PhD student’s dissertation into the mix as the subject was written about over the span of three pages.
  • "Significant coverage" - Try googling: “John Mateer” instead of “John Thomas Mateer” for sources. There is a very large amount of varying reliable and independent sources covering the subject. Without all original research, the reliable sources left .. are MORE than enough to source this article.
  • “Reliable”- Forbes, National Geographic, ABC, The Weather Channel, TLC, Teen Vogue & Seventeen Magazine..
  • “Sources” - Article References are varied in both type and depth.
  • “Independent of the Subject” - the sources are indeed independent of the subject - it is clear to know this by a handful of mega-corporation names being the publication of these articles. Based on nomination explanation, the article John Thomas Mateer met the criteria in WP:GNG but had certain elements been removed, then it would not have met these standards. I took it upon myself to see passed this and take the critical comment as a learning experience. I cleaned up the oversourcing, added some more reliable sources while removing any content and sources that I would not need.
4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This advice is coming a bit late but you should really take advantage of Draft space and User Space like your Sandbox to create and develop articles, it's a "safer space" where editors are allowed to gradually improve articles over time. By placing articles that are unready directly into the main space of the project, they are subject to be tagged for Speedy Deletion or to be nominated for an AFD discussion. I understand that many new editors are eager to get their first work in the encyclopedia right away but it's not a friendly place to learn how to edit and articles are scrutinized and evaluated much more thoroughly than if they were in Draft space and submitted to AFC. Just something to consider for you next article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can request that instead of being deleted (if that is where the discussion is heading), that your article be "Draftified" instead and moved into Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz I can't close this 'cos there's been a delete vote, but if you want to close as draftify I have no objection as nominator... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will genuinely respect whatever you think is the right thing to do. I don’t understand how draftifying it is different from deleting it and just starting a draft of the article (genuinely have no clue) but if that’s the call you are making then I’m going to accept that.
I do agree I should have drafted the article first, but not it’s at the point that.. let’s say I remove the Filmography and leave the main parts of the article that are absolutely verified through reliable sources.. essentially getting rid of the stuff that needs to be sourced better and leave up what is meeting the standards set by Wikipedia… could I just replace the {{stub}} tag and render the article a stub again that is in need of further elaboration? Is this possible? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replace meaning put the {{stub}} tag back into the the source code of the article. There was once a stub tag and I removed it once the article got longer. I could revert the article to the state it was in when it was a stub and put the tag back. Sorry, I worded that poorly. Just wanted to clarify. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And while the article getting nominated for deletion wasn’t what I wanted, of course, I actually did just learn a lot through having it happen. I now understand the deletion process better, the importance of utilizing my sandbox and not jumping straight into live articles and of course how not to completely wreck an AfD page (truly sorry about that one). 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will of course leave off with the fact that WP:INTROTODELETE specifically states that articles in bad shape are not subject to the deletion process. So, while I do understand it needed to be developed further in drafting, this whole AfD process happening at all was unnecessary by Wikipedia’s own standards. Subject meets WP:GNG, the need for cleanup of an article does not warrant a nomination for deletion. By these standards set directly by Wikipedia, I am supporting the eventual Keep decision.. whenever that decision will get made and by whomever makes that decision. I hope they see that this deletion proposal directly contradicts the standards put in place by WP.
Thank you. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please draftify. I guess if it comes down to this article is going to be lost or sent to draft.. I’d prefer the latter. Just sad. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! See this is advice that I actually will take. Yeah I agree that probably would’ve been the right thing in hindsight. I rushed into it, but I genuinely don’t think that the subject doesn’t meet the WP:GNG like is being alluded to. The criteria are all met and that’s why I am personally saying Keep in response to the AfD. I will continue to take in the advice and peer reviews from editors who know what they’re doing on here, and I will hopefully be able to grow as a result of it. But my own lack of precision in the fine details of editing on Wikipedia (which is a hyper-specific craft that is going to take time to develop the skills to do second-nature) don’t change the notability of the subject. Much like how WP:AKON states no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability — I believe the inverse to be just as true. Poor editing from a newcomer (myself) doesn’t make a subject that meets the criteria for WP:GNG .. suddenly not meet these criteria anymore because of the poor editing.
The article needs work. I am beyond open to any suggestions and help that anyone would offer. However, I still think deletion is not warranted. I will respect whatever decision is made, of course. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE The article in question was moved to draft by its author, 'worked on' and moved back to mainspace under a new title - John Mateer (filmmaker) resulting in this unclosed, redlinked AfD. Please do refer to John Mateer (filmmaker) before casting any vote on this AfD, which remains open for the same reasons it was originally nominated. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per nom. Not swayed by the author's Wikilawyering and bludgeoning.-KH-1 (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've moved the article back to its original title. Leaning on delete for lack of meeting the GNG. I don't think this is notable. Maybe later, but not now. ~StyyxTalk? 19:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment THank you, Styyx, for moving the article back. Along its travels over the past few days, it lost its AFD tag so I have replaced that. Let the AFD discussion proceed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify When I suggested draftification, it was not to be taken literally as a thing to do during an AFD discussion but as an act to take in the closure of this AFD. I do fear though that time in Draft space will be short and this article might be back in main space within a day or two. Instead, I recommend submitting it to AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize. I moved the article to draft as was discussed and after changing the article name (also discussed), I tried to add it to AfC to get it reviewed — I am realizing now that I added it back to the main-space. I am really sorry. Trust me I wouldn’t have risked it just getting deleted. I spent a lot of time trying to begin cleaning it up. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my god. I am sorry. I didn’t know that I had to wait for drafting it. I feel really stupid. My bad. I will let the discussion continue without further messing around with things. I will instead spend this time reading up on the rules of article creation/deletion etc. I apologize. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was confused because Draft:Article Name still seems to appear in search results. Is draft not the same as Sandbox? Sorry for a question that is likely very basic knowledge. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can just go ahead and Delete it honestly. It’s not even worth it at this point. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    “ Not swayed by the author's Wikilawyering and bludgeoning.” Please go ahead and delete. I didn’t know that Wikipedia and the information on it was dictated by these sorts of things. Kind of appalling. What happened to the fact that AFD standards according to Wikipedia say not to vote upon the deletion? What about the fact that the subject quite literally meets every single criteria for WP:GNG? This is just social hour and I’m not into it. It doesn’t shock me to hear the editor retention here is horrible. You are all bullies. Delete the page. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4theloveofallthings, I didn't intend for my comments to lead to you quitting the project. We all make mistakes. I've been editing regularly for 9 years and if you come to my talk page, you find it full of comments from editors who are unhappy with something I've done. It's how you learn and become a better editor. You are free to retire if you want, but I think the message folks were sending you was that this article is not ready for main space. Some articles need a lot of time and attention to be ready for main space and that's the process of writing articles on Wikipedia. It's not quick and easy. I hope you reconsider, I think you still can make a contribution here. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rimi B. Chatterjee[edit]

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

Seemingly WP:NN author failing each element of WP:AUTHOR. While some books have been "shortlisted" for awards that she did not win, it appears she won a minor award, the Sharp Book History award for one book. [14]

This article was created and heavily edited by the subject.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books being reviewed establishes WP:NBOOK, not WP:AUTHOR unless the author has created a significant or well-known work, which is not the case here. Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR#3 can be supported by a collective body of work, with multiple reviews (she is the author of multiple notable works), and she won a SHARP DeLong Prize [15] (publisher citation also removed by the nominator in advance of the nomination). Beccaynr (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you would need to show that her collective work is "well known" or significant which it does not appear to be. I see no references to her collective work anywhere or any coverage of her from independent sources. A few reviews of her books show nothing about the author. Toddst1 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews are about her work, so it shows something about her. Multiple notable works are a typical support for notability of an author's article, and another one of her works won critical attention in the form of an award. In the Wikipedia Library, additional sources include: Suparno Banerjee, "Alternative Dystopia: Science, Power, and Fundamentalism in Rimi B. Chatterjee's "Signal Red"", Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, Vol. 20, No. 1 (75) (2009), pp. 24-41, and Signal Red is analyzed in Sami Ahmad Khan, "The Others in India's Other Futures" Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3, Indian SF (November 2016), pp. 479-495.
She is also quoted in the Times of India as faculty at the department of English at Jadavpur University in 2012 (via Gale), in 2014 (via Gale) as a professor and "a constant source of support for the organizers" of an activist event, as an English department professor in 2018, 2 (via Gale), in DNA India as "Translator, linguist and professor of English literature" in 2017 (via Gale), in The Telegraph as a "science fiction writer" in 2018 (via Gale), and as "the head of the English department" in 2020 (via Gale). There is also a bylined announcement in TOI in 2013 (via Gale) about her graphic novels Incredible Splendour and The King of the Green Island. Beccaynr (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a review that includes her contribution: "The Gollancz Book of South Asian Science Fiction by Tarun Saint - Review" (Free Press Journal 2019) (via Gale) (specifically notes her work "A Night Joking Clown" as one of "the best of the lot"); The Telegraph notes she is one of the contributing translators to The Crazy Tales of Pagla Dashu and Co. 2012 (via Gale), and her work "Zigsa" is noted (in LONGFORM: An Anthology of Graphic Narratives, Volume 1) in an article about comics in The Telegraph in 2018 (via Gale). She is quoted as "a novelist" in The Telegraph in 2010 (via Gale), quoted and mentioned as "published work in English and teaches at Jadavpur University" and "now working on a science fiction novel that is set 600 years into the future and plans to write a chick lit some day" by TOI in 2012 (via Gale), quoted as a "Translator and professor of English Literature" by DNA in 2017 (via Gale), and her work Black Light is mentioned in an article about women writers by IANS in 2011 (via Gale); she is also quoted for her opinion as a novelist by The Indian Express in 2011 (via Gale), and as "author and English professor at Jadavpur University, Kolkata" in 2009 (via Gale). Beccaynr (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the book reviews should pass AUTHOR, but this is a mess of an article. It needs more biographical information and better formatting. Might even pass ACADEMIC, she's got a fair bit of citations [ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ib9_yUAAAAAJ&hl=en]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple reviews of multiple books in major newspapers clearly passes WP:AUTHOR and provide in-depth coverage of the subject's notability, also passing WP:GNG. For sportspeople, we expect our in-depth coverage to be about their sporting achievements. For politicians, we expect it to be about their political offices and accomplishments. Same for authors. The fact that the coverage we have on this author focuses on their authored works and not on their taste in street food or other unimportant biographical details is irrelevant; it is in-depth, independent coverage. And the nominator's removal of the main sources that provide notability immediately prior to nominating this for deletion is not a good look. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the multiple-reviews-of-multiple-books standard, aka WP:WDYECOAATBA (What Did You Expect Coverage Of An Author To Be About). XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the user David Eppstein said. Contributor008 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beccaynr & David Eppstein. I think the nominator has a fundamental misconception as to how WP:AUTHOR is applied. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets the criteria and notability to have an article. aaronneallucas (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:AUTHOR, per per Beccaynr & David Eppstein. ZanciD (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Ari (Indian Street Metal)[edit]

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

Indian Street Metal single by bluelinked Bloodywood, this single is not notable. No chart placing, no gold discs, claim of views uncited (and in any case doesn't count towards notability), coverage is mix of passing mentions, YouTube 'reaction' or articles about the band - the one article all about the single is an interview. No evidence of lasting impact. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSINGLE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources (except for [4] which is clearly a blog) QuietHere (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented above. They're reliable adn in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above sources provided by voters. ZanciD (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahan Air Flight 81[edit]

Mahan Air Flight 81 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing really happened, which made the news the day it didn't happen, but has no lasting impact. Fram (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it had been bombed, it would have stayed as an article. However, it's a hoax. A scare. And per WP:NOTNEWS, delete. Sarrail (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. GedUK  11:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Dobson[edit]

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

Non notable businessesman. Reads like a CV. Coriannakox (talk) 10:49, 5 October 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 Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. Star Mississippi 01:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC) ETA and delete H. Terry redirect due to the redirection of the article with all of the cricketer's names. Thanks for flagging my omission. Star Mississippi 12:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry John Terry[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, does not meet WP:GNG or the revised version of WP:NOLY, while he did win a medal there were only two teams competing in the event. A search brought up nothing outside of directory listings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(List withdrawn per suggestion below)
I suggest redirect (per WP:ATD) to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists for all of the following, as none of them meet WP:GNG:
If that needs a new AFD, please let me know. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 14:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree with redirecting these, however some have been expanded, e.g. William Donne (cricketer) (although there doesn't appear to be much, if any, significant coverage there), and I would suggest carefully examining those whose first name we do not know with likely ambiguous initials before doing do, which includes the subject of this AFD and especially Browning (could be William, Walter, etc.). wjematherplease leave a message... 15:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see amended !vote immediately below). Fails NSPORT and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Redirect is not appropriate in this case because of the ambiguity of having just an initial and there are other people named H. Terry who are more notable and/or have articles, e.g. Helen Terry, Harry Terry, Henry Dwight Terry, etc., which means a list of Olympic cricketers would be a surprise target. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect Henry John Terry to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists; and delete H. Terry as an ambiguous redirect to a surprising target. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change of title. Terry's forenames have been found on the CricketArchive database, also his date of birth, but there is nothing else. Beachcroft's first name was Charles (that is in the article), but we have initials only for Browning and Roques, although the latter shouldn't present a redirect problem. Perhaps we should delete Browning and redirect the rest? BoJó | talk UTC 08:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Maybe just boldly redirect those without substantial content/sources (i.e. more than just the usual database entries and scorecards) following this AFD and PROD/start a new AFD for Browning? wjematherplease leave a message... 10:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've removed the list and will redirect all except Browning (new AFD to follow).
Redirect Henry John Terry as above; delete H. Terry as above. BoJó | talk UTC 12:06, 6 October 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! 08:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EurOmnis[edit]

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

Article with no references. Could not find any news (or social media, or anything really) coverage whatsoever and the website hasn't been updated for a couple of years. Fails WP:GNG. Blue Edits (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My searches find a faceboook, twitter, linkedin, and web page for the conference, but I could not find any independent coverage. It is hard to find any reliable secondary sources.
In 2019, an edit removed "excessive social networking, fansites, blogs and indirect sites per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:ELNO", however after this the article still only consists of primary sources
In 2017 the page was PRODed with stated reason: "There is no verifiable evidence WP:NEXIST"
An IP responded to the PROD, noting that the conference had been held recently, and that it had actually been renamed to Omnis World
(In 2019 the page is renamed from Omnis World back to EurOmnis. I could not locate a source announcing either name change, wording and URLs on the primary web page suggests both names may be in use)
I also don't think this meets notability, in the absence of any significant coverage.
An additional criteria in WP:ORGSIG for companies or products is to "consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, [...]".
I've seen no evidence for this kind of impact, not even as a software developer in what I assume is the broad target market for this sort of tech conference or product (an app development environments with a focus on database integration).
Searches yield evidence that the company has existed for a long time, but no evidence of a significant effect on culture/society/etc that I can find. Mlkj (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources for either name, social media sites, that's it.Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "EurOmnis is 4 fully packed days, 20 of the most prominent and knowledgeable speakers in the Omnis world, 50 sessions and 60 different subjects." Kill me already. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 5 October 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! 08:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jhalobia Recreation Park and Garden[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, the only coverage available comes from primary sources and fluff pieces in clearly unreliable tourism websites. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:43, 5 October 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! 08:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Journeys: the Series (YouTube)[edit]

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

This is, as far as I can tell, the regular Pokémon Journeys: The Series series, but for India it is shown on a youtube channel? No idea why this needs a separate article, and the disambiguator makes it an unlikely search term so a redirect seems like a bad idea as well. We don't create separate articles for every language a TV series is dubbed in. Fram (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion for same reasons: Pokémon the Series: XY (YouTube). Fram (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, you go ahead. I understand.
    Sorry for that.
    But Can we translate the english articles into other languages? Krish1604 (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both - The information on these airings is already included on the main article of the respective Pokémon seasons as they should be, and there is no real reason to split them out into separate articles. As mentioned by the nom, these article titles are not particularly useful search terms, so Redirects would not be needed. Rorshacma (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can't find any sources (even in Youtube) that Pokémon Journeys: The Series has been released in Hindi language. It can be hoax. Contributor008 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both completely unnecessary page split. It would be chaos if we had a page for every language foreign media was released in. Link20XX (talk) 01:10, 7 October 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! 08:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Rossi[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG criteria. QuietHere (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. QuietHere (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO as the winner of a nationally televised music contest.4meter4 (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, but Rock Star's notability is also questionable given the lack of sourcing and #9's "major" qualifier might not be met. QuietHere (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He has done more than appear on the reality show, and has gotten some coverage for his later efforts to get a rock career going. His accomplishments aren't very impressive but he does get the media notice, so I hope that helps him eat tonight. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the small clutch of RSes in the article, there is [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Chubbles (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Chubbles' finds... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep this sufficiently sourced article about a musician in multiple bands. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The briefest of Proquest searches yields over 1,000 hits for "Lukas Rossi" and over 900 hits for "Lukas Rossi" supernova. Some of these are significant national coverage. This is clearly a WP:BEFORE failure, and perhaps User:QuietHere can withdraw. Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 11 October 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 Adrenaline Mob. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Orlando[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG criteria. QuietHere (talk) 07:07, 5 October 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! 08:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships damaged by kamikaze attack[edit]

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

A List of ships sunk by kamikazes might satisfy WP:SALAT, but not a list of those that were just damaged. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Don't see the value in this. Mztourist (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. All of the ships are blue linked; sourcing for the Kamikaze attacks appears adequate in those articles per a quick perusal. I see no reason why such a list, well documented and presumably complete over 75 years later, should be restricted to those ships lost to the attack modality only. In short, GNG met, encyclopedic topic, expansion capacity exists to FL status. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is GNG satisfied? Are there lists like this one out there? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of kamizake attacks on allied warships is covered non-trivially in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. As usual, you won't find a book specifically matching Wikipedia naming conventions, but we can agree that the topic of ships hit by kamikaze attacks has been the subject of then-current news and later military strategy, I trust. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Agree, this could fill out into something GA. Right now, it's a valid topic and list. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, by creating sortable table with additional columns for ship types, dates, locations, whether sunk/damaged, casualties. Bahudhara (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep and a friendly trout to the nom —usernamekiran (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The reasoning above re: keeping seems solid enough (plenty of sourcing on kamikaze attacks, this isn't too massive, and it could easily be expanded). At the same time, the current name is not optimal. The current title refers to all kamikaze attacks, during any war, against any ship, yet the article starts with A number of Allied ships were damaged by kamikaze attacks during World War II.... Either 1) the inclusion criteria needs to be broadened, or 2) the article needs to be renamed to something along the lines of List of Allied ships damaged by kamikaze attack during World War II. I'd prefer #1, especially given that (I'd assume) the Venn diagram of the current article title and the current inclusion criteria is likely close to a circle, so throwing in the few exceptions is probably not going to explode the list. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was the first and as far as I know only time in history this type of attack was done during warfare, and listing the ships that got hit by it, with a link to their articles showing the exact details, is something that should be in this encyclopedia. Dream Focus 02:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand into a proper table with dates and details. BD2412 T 03:45, 12 October 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! 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Moyer[edit]

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

Cannot find coverage and doesn't appear to meet any other WP:MUSICBIO criteria aside from #6. QuietHere (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. QuietHere (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from being in almost half a dozen notable bands, he's got significant coverage of his own. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Chubbles (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's one of those long-serving journeymen who has been in a lot of bands, but that has resulted in an overall career that gets coverage in its own right, while his presence in various bands gets coverage. All can be seen in the sources found by Chubbles, and more. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chubbles to the rescue once again. Passes WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep this sufficiently sourced article about a musician in multiple bands. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OTT-ONE[edit]

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

Not notable; advertisement-like, bad sources (not RS). 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 5 October 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 Emirates Cup. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Emirates Cup[edit]

2022 Emirates Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable friendly "tournament" consisting of one game. Coverage is wp:routine. A bold redirect to Emirates Cup was reverted, but would also be reasonable. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:55, 5 October 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 and turn into a disambiguation page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auctor[edit]

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

This is a poor excuse for WP:DICTDEF, mixed with a poor excude for a disambig. Nothing here suggests this meets WP:GNG as a notable term. Delete or redirect to Author? Or maybe cross wiki redirect to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/auctor ? PS. Category:Latin words and phrases could use a review for similar cases of DICTDEF. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article definitely could do with a bit of editing. The term auctor is replaced by author in biology in American speaking institutions, but is sometimes found in more traditional British English institutions as well as a number of European institutions where English is the 2nd language. As such I believe it warrant mention on Wikipedia. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, there are multiple possible meanings of the term without a clear primary topic.[2] Amongst other meanings, auctor may refer to:

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/09/02/biden-speech-network-coverage-independence-hall/
  2. ^ Danuta Fjellestad; Rolf Lundén; Stephen Donovan (2015). Authority Matters; Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Authorship. Rodopi. p. 2. ISBN 9789401206464.
  3. ^ Charles Tesoriero; Frances Muecke; Tamara Neal, eds. (2010). Lucan. Oxford University Press. p. 331. ISBN 9780199277223.
  4. ^ "Curio". Humanities magazine. Vol. 32. National Endowment for the Humanities. January 2011. p. 4.
  5. ^ Finn Sandberg; Desmond Corrigan (2001). Natural Remedies Their Origins and Uses. Taylor & Francis. p. 6. ISBN 9780415272025.
  6. ^ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Vol. 4. Harvard University Press. 1893. p. 145.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete as the term is likely to be searched by readers, though there's definitely no scope for an article. Redirecting to Wiktionary will work (such a redirect would meet the conditions at Template:Wi), and recasting as a dab page may be viable too (the entries may appear to be a bit too dictionary-like, but for some of them there exists somewhat relevant content here on Wikipedia). – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambiguation page.4meter4 (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disambiguate; not implausible search term. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:52, 13 October 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! 06:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin K. A. Morgan[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in independent RS of this individual or his books. (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Established author with published historical works. National Geographic and IGN articles are RS -- Thats Just Great (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IGN "article" is an interview with one of his coworkers who mentions Morgan twice. Neither independent nor sigcov. The National Geographic is not an article, it's a bio of a contributor which is usually provided by that contributor and not an independent source. Just publishing books does not make someone notable. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added more links to the article. -- Thats Just Great (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no independent sources provided... (t · c) buidhe 19:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's certainly an expert in this field, and is quoted often, yet the only independent "bio" I was able to find is this, and it barely says anything about him. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call that a bio. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Alabama. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence that this passes WP:NAUTHOR, never mind WP:NACADEMICS. Thus falls to WP:NBASIC which, again, the sources appear to not reach. Only sources that have even a waft of independence are the bio-page on National Geographic, which turns out to not be independent because its existence indicates the subject is in fact associated with NatGeo; and the IGN story that only references the subject passingly in an interview answer by an affiliated person. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the two journals that cite his work and the Guardian article. Do they help? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two citations are not notability. (t · c) buidhe 23:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 5 October 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 03:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weave News[edit]

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

Reviewed through NPP. No indication of notability. There are no independent reliable sources cited in the article and I was unable to find any though WP:BEFORE. Spicy (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguous SPA WP:PROMO activity. A cursory google search turns up nothing. BrigadierG (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most hits are to the site itself. Others are simply by-lines for xyz person at Weave News. Something on givebutter.com, long way from RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 5 October 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 03:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iván Castillejos[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Castillejos had a short-lived professional career and had less of an impact than his more famous brother. The only online English and Spanish-language coverage is trivial, including passing mentions and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autism National Committee[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent RS found after a before search (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Organizations. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Facilitated communication (or just delete). Weak delete. The Autism National Committee (AUTCOM) is noted within the autism literature as an advocate of facilitated communication (FC), which is a controversial technique (also referred to as "pseudo-scientific" or "unproven") where a facilitator helps a profoundly disabled person communicate through a keyboard using an ideomotor or "oujia board" effect. The Slate and CNN "Paging Dr. Gupta" blog articles cited within the article already include passing mentions to AUTCOM in this context, but AUTCOM and its support of FC is mentioned in a bit more depth (neutrally worded description of organization, plus a few sentences including a quote from AUTCOM statement) in Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Reference Handbook (ABC-CLIO, 2010). The current page for Facilitated communication does not include any mention of AUTCOM anywhere at the moment, so even if it's just inclusion in a bulletpoint list, it is probably worth performing some form of "merge" before deleting this article. Beyond FC, AUTCOM is known for two other things: 1) How Safe Is the Schoolhouse? An Analysis of State Seclusion and Restraint Laws and Policies, a regularly updated report which it publishes, documenting state-level protections against restraint and seclusion of children in schools across all 50 states, which is cited periodically in newspapers (particularly when incidents occur involving children with autism or other disabilities, or when legislation is being discussed); and 2) its opposition to discrete trial training (DTT) and "shock therapy" for autistic children (see this mention/quote in a syndicated 1999 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer). (I guess that AUTCOM could be mentioned on the DTT page as well.) It is a lot of brief mentions and mentions in passing, nothing in depth about the organization itself, so regardless of whether it gets merged or deleted, I don't think it's a keep. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your in-depth search! (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed my !vote to "weak delete" above, as I've now performed the two content merges I suggested (adding info about AutCom to Facilitated communication and Discrete trial training). It's a weak delete because if there were at least one more secondary source that discussed the organization in depth, someone might be able to write an article (and in my book, WP:NONPROFIT is not quite as rigorous as WP:NCORP, and this is a national organization). (But I've looked again via ProQuest, etc., and not found anything appropriate beyond mentions of their general policy stances, as I explained previously.) Cielquiparle (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The excellent content merges by Cielquiparle make this an easy call. This organization, as opposed to its advocated topics, has no significant coverage in reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any relevant information can be covered in Facilitated communication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per findings by Cielquiparle. Haueirlan (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per other deletion comments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I don't believe a third relist would be helpful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Christian Schools[edit]

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

This school fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. A Christian school that appears to have the typical run-of-the-mill school coverage (i.e. local newspapers writing about sports and graduation). I don't see how this subject meets our guidelines for notability. Thank you for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable. Has trivial non-independent local coverage and a self-published book, but nothing of substance. Thparkth (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable non-trivial coverage from Goshen News (On current construction, mission, growth) and WYFI (school walk-out). Additional material might (I caution on this source) be gleaned from this document. Coverage is primarily local, with additional coverage of sports from outlets like the Chicago Tribune or covering the murder of one of their students in some statewide papers. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the coverage of the school falls foul of WP:AUD ... "attention solely from local media ... is not an indication of notability." Furthermore two of your three Goshen News examples appear to be either reprinted press releases or stories entirely based on press releases, which means they are not independent and can't establish notability (WP:PRSOURCE). Coverage of a student's murder does not lend notability to the school. Coverage of high school sports is usually not notable even in its own right (WP:YOUNGATH) so can't lend notability to the school either. The walkout story mentions the school only in passing. The PDF you linked to is... difficult to categorize! But it certainly isn't independent or published in a reliable source. So the story about the new gym is the strongest source in your list, and it just isn't very strong at all.Thparkth (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thparkth: Agree on the PDF; linked it solely because I was optimistic another editor might know how to parlay that into finding additional material. Also agree on the coverage of the murder and non-local sports coverage; only mentioned just for WP:BEFORE purposes. I disagree on the AUD front at least tepidly, though, because I'm suspecting I missed something. However, if a few days pass and we don't hear anything new come out on sourcing outside Goshen, I'll swing over to weak dlt so we can close this on the first listing; if nothing comes in a week, it won't in three. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The notability requirement for public schools and universities is WP:ORG or WP:GNG, but non-profit educational institutions are not required to satisfy WP:ORG (including WP:AUD): The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) Here's the WP:GNG description of the notability requirement for significant coverage: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the spirit of WP:HEY, I've added sources from newspapers.com and the Goshen News pieces above, enough to easily pas GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG, it's definitely a notable school --Bigneeerman (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no independent sources, but boy oh boy, the subject of this article sure does have someone that knows how you crank out press releases. I removed the entire "Co-curricular activities" as an example of that. Schools doing things most schools do doesn't make them notable even if they employ someone to make sure the newspapers know about it. Possibly high achievement in things all schools do might lead some to presume some notability might arise from that, but that's not been shown. Having fundraisers doesn't speak to a private institutions notability, even if the paper published the press release. Having the POTUS speak at it would. I've given the entire article a rewrite away from PR, but that still seems to be its prime purpose. 174.212.227.245 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see only trivial and/or run-off-the-mill sources. No in-depth sources. The Banner talk 17:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. I'm a Hoosier and this is all super hyper local coverage, the usual "stuff" that schools get coverage for, and that award is nothing of major notoriety in the state or Midwest. It's not like getting a high level LEED certification award or something. Seriously trivial. I appreciate the efforts of those trying to pull a WP:HEY but nothing here convinces me that this school meets general notability guidelines outside of local coverage. Missvain (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too appreciate the effort to save this article, but IMO, the bit on the 2018 walkout is unencyclopedic. One local source. No enduring coverage, nothing changed. The fact that many schools nationwide participated in it (and nothing changed) makes it less encyclopedic, not more. It may be different elsewhere, but walkouts are not uncommon in Indiana High schools. I participated in one, 50 years ago, and I'll bet many students have since. If you peruse the history of this article you'll see that back when schools did have some amount of presumed notability, there were many OWN issues here. Matter of fact, it was common across Indiana schools. I do believe this article is, was and always has been nothing more than a PR vehicle for a pretty small school. It is an early Mennonite secondary school (possibly the first), but until an independent publisher puts out a history of Mennonite education, that's both speculation and irrelevant. 174.212.229.15 (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      100% on what you just shared here and I'm totally having flashbacks to the Indiana school walkouts I participated in 25 years ago. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My grandmother was from Michigantown, in Clinton County, Indiana, and though I never heard her swear, when she was cross or surprised, she would say under her breath, "Land o' Goshen!" in lieu of swearing. I'd just make two points about the sourcing in this article: First, the WP:AUD (part of WP:ORG) that specifies at least regional coverage for notability is not a requirement for public or non-profit schools. Schools need to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORG, or both (the "both" part applies to for-profit schools and universities). Even so, my second point: I believe the South Bend Tribune, a Gannett newspaper, actually does qualify as a regional source, as out WP article points out, "It is distributed in South Bend, Mishawaka, north central Indiana and southwestern Michigan... It is the third largest daily broadsheet newspaper in the State of Indiana by circulation." Regardless of that second point, I still think this article passes GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The question isn't the publication, it's the author. None of the articles published in the SBT were written by a reporter at the SBT. They were written off press releases written by an employee of the school, dropped off, faxed or telephoned to the paper and were written up by a copy editor at the paper. They lack independance. There's no journalism whatsoever. GNG requires INDEPENDENT journalism, with a reporter actually writing a detailed newspaper article himself about the subject of the article. Wikipedia articles are not created to provide their subject a means to communicate. BTW, "Land o' Goshen" was a common misdwestern expletive from the circa 1900. It refers to the biblical place, not the city in Indiana named after it.174.212.229.15 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your take on the journalism of the South Bend Tribune is interesting, but inaccurate. You removed SBT sources that do have bylines, 1 and 2, though had you assumed good faith and discussed the deletions on the article talk page, I would have supplied links to the rest of the article 3 and 4 for which #2 was a graphic showing comparative results, including those from Bethany Christian. Sometimes reporters do call school officials, verifying various facts, and we need to be cautious using their printed versions tagged "according to school officials", but it's a mistake to reject all the school-related articles writing them off as "releases written by an employee of the school". I am very sorry you didn't appreciate my attempt at comedy over the coincidence of the schools' location in Goshen and my Grandmother's expression... It seems like you need a good laugh. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) is not about the school at all, but about a competition, with a brief mention of some competitors from the school (along with other schools). (2) is only a trivial mention in a data table along with many other schools. (3) and (4), which are two parts of the same story, do not mention the school at all. There isn't an ounce of substantial independent coverage of the school itself. Thparkth (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - My apologies, Thparkth, for not making clear I mentioned the sources above solely to question the assertion, "None of the articles published in the SBT were written by a reporter at the SBT." I've a added more sources today, and would point to these WP:THREE candidates:
  1. Lepak, Evan (August 21, 2023). "Prep Soccer: Bethany Christian introduces facility renovations". Goshen News. Retrieved 2022-09-25.
  2. Kline, John (February 17, 2010). "Bethany staff considering anthem issue". Goshen News. Retrieved 2022-09-30.
  3. "Indiana Department of Education congratulates winners of the U.S. Department of Education's Green Ribbon Schools Award". States News Service. May 5, 2017 – via Gale Academic OneFile, EBSCO. The Indiana Department of Education today congratulated the Indiana recipients of the U.S. Department of Education's Green Ribbon Schools Award. The awarded schools included Burris Laboratory School of Muncie and Bethany Christian Schools in Goshen...The award recognizes winners who excel in the areas of reducing environmental impact and costs, improving the health and wellness of schools, students, and staff, and providing an environmental education, incorporating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM), civic skills, and green career pathways. Combined progress in all three areas serves as the basis for recognition.
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk 00:50, September 30, 2022‎
  • Comment -- Yes it is a run of the mill school, but we have habitually allowed articles on secondary schools, of which this is one. Unless there is indication that the content is untrue or there are BLP issues, lack of sourcing is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- From this [34] piece of article from April 1996 to This [35], This [36] and This [37] mention in Government Directory it shows the fact that the School is notable enough to be kept. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 09:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources provided above are all routine local news coverage. Nothing here which passes WP:ORGCRIT, which schools are required to pass per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Schools are not required to meet ORGCRIT, which is part of WP:NORG unless they are for-profit orgnizations. Instead, they may meet the alternative, WP:GNG, with the requirement for significant coverage:

    Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

    — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Haueirlan (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as The Goshen News which is a regional publication. As this is a non-profit school WP:AUD does not apply, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've looked through the history of the article and I just don't see enough significant and independent coverage to be able to write an article that doesn't sound like a resume of the school's recent achievements. In particular, writing such as "In September 2022 a 42 years old Driver killed as 65-year-old Goshen Man named as Peter Shetler who was the staff of Bethany Christian Schools, When the drivers view was blocked by the sun's glare" is poor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry, Tb123, but the consensus here is to delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason McArthur[edit]

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

A few passing mentions as a goalie for a minor league goalie in regional newspapers. Does not have WP:SIGCOV or meet WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The OCAA is not a level of athletic play that guarantees inclusion under our notability criteria for sportspeople, but he can't be claimed to pass WP:GNG either as this is referenced to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and community hyperlocals glancingly namechecking his existence in articles that aren't substantively about him. Absolutely nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No level of athletic play guarantees inclusion under our notability criteria for sportspeople. Alvaldi (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20-Mule Team Delete: This is such a painfully obscure subject that should the article creator pop up, I'd like him to address whether there's a COI involved ... the more so in that the subject purportedly works in sports marketing. All the sources involve routine sports reporting from an obscure and little-noticed level of hockey (Junior C), and the subject doesn't meet the GNG generally. Ravenswing 18:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm finding nothing but the occasional insignificant namecheck in local papers. I'd say speedy if it wasn't already 6 days old! Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal to move to draftspace: Thank you for bringing to attention that the article doesn't meet notability criteria as it currently stands! If there's general consensus, I'd like to move it to a draftspace so that the article can be improved upon until it does, rather than swift deletion. Also to address the concern, there is no COI involved on my end. Tb123 (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd object to draftifying; that implies that there's anything remotely about the subject which might prove notable down the line. That might be conceivable for a sports figure who might gain significant coverage down the road, but to put it bluntly, a goalie whose hockey career was ten brief (and terrible) games in Junior C five years ago has as much chance of achieving athletic notability as I do, and I haven't had a goalie stick in my hands for thirty years now. Ravenswing 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with User:Ravenswing. Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 11 October 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! 03:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dick[edit]

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

I’m not convinced that a deputy ambassador to Hungary is de facto notable. There is coverage around his death from covid, but I’m not sure we need a biography here. Uhooep (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hello, I created this page. It seems impossible that he'll become any more notable, so deletion would be fair game. News of his death was broadcast on UK television at the time, but I hadn't heard of him before then and haven't heard of him since either. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and page creator. Deputy Amb is not notable - Amb is actually not inherently notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the reasons outlined above that the subject does not have the level of notability that would justify an article. Dunarc (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While a sad end to perhaps a more promising diplomatic career, notability not sufficiently established to keep. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:35, 7 October 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 Foreign exchange market#Forward. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forward exchange market[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article since 2009. With how the article is formatted currently, it might be worth WP:TNT-ing it. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per SailingInABathTub. There is plausibly a notable topic here (although a cursory search for sources doesn't show up anything that makes it absolutely obvious that we should have an article on this). However, the current article is utterly unsourced and anyone wanting to write this would probably have to start from scratch. I would not be opposed to this being unredirected if/when someone finds some sources and starts writing. (Equally, if someone brings up some reliable sources in the course of this AfD and expands the article, then I'd vote keep.) WJ94 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now per WP:PRESERVE, since we have fine coverage in the target article, but without prejudice to expansion by a new editor. Ovinus (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose & Poetry[edit]

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

No sources are cited in-article and my own search has mostly turned up primary source descriptions of the event and team websites describing it, with no significant third-party coverage of any kind. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 00:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable subject and no coverage beyond primary sources. Creamjuice (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Checked with the various organizations mentioned and although it appears on one page from the past as "Original prose and poetry" I cannot find evidence that the combined topic is an event in any current activities, and the "original" usage is just a simple mention. Lamona (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, generic non-notable high school competition, a search brought up no sources that would contribute to a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Parochial subject and lack of sourcing combined, there would seem to be little point in keeping this page hanging around. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 European Junior Judo Championships[edit]

2022 European Junior Judo Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources are primary, which ofc does not contribute to either criteria. All medalists are also red-linked. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is a notable event. Moreover, a quick Hebrew search of this international event easily found coverage ([38][39][40][41]). I wonder if such an attempt was made before the article was flagged as one that "lacks WP:SIGCOV". CLalgo (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are all about Israeli athletes having success at this tournament. Since junior martial arts events don't convey notability, I'm not seeing how this shows the event was notable. WP:NEVENT says an event is notable if it has "enduring historical significance", "a significant lasting effect" (WP:LASTING), and has a "widespread impact" that is "widely covered in diverse sources". I don't see how this tournament meets that when all of its sources seem to be just typical reporting of sports results for a junior event. Papaursa (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, those are just 4 examples of event coverage in a specific language. Others could be easily found, refuting WP:SIGCOV. As to WP:NEVENT, please note the the enduring historical significance & a significant lasting effect are noted for general news events, not necessarily sports ones. As most sport events will never meet standards as high as these, the argument seem irrelevant. CLalgo (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 5 October 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 Merged to Flag of Novorossiya by article creator. (non-admin closure) Tartan357 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Kherson Oblast (Russia)[edit]

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

Zero reliable sources. The only thing cited is the Kremlin website. Additionally, this should not have been created while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) is going strong. Tartan357 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, History, Politics, and Russia. Tartan357 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It'd make more sense to put this content in a subsection of Flag of Kherson Oblast, or if other editors prefer, at the Flag of Novorossiya article (maybe that article should be renamed "Flags of Russian-occupied Ukraine" article considering there was never such a thing as Novorossiya?) Worth noting that even the flag of Donetsk People's Republic isn't considered notable enough to have its own distinct article. With no secondary sources, this article obviously fails WP:GNG. Even the one source it cites, a page on kremlin.ru, is not primarily about the flag of Russian-occupied Kherson.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Kremlin is a reliable source for Russian claims about it's own administrative divisions. There's a de facto policy that flags of governments are inherently notable. Wikipedia doesn't have to acknowledge anything about the truth of Russia's claim to document that they have created an administrative structure and assorted paraphernalia for their claim. There's too many knee-jerk reactions based on taking sides in the war. And for consistency - someone should merge these AfDs if any of the other Russian newly-claimed oblasts has the flag AfD'd. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV requires independent, secondary sources to establish notability. Editing 101 here. The Kremlin does not get to unliterally establish notability for propaganda pages. Point me to that policy if it exists. I'll wait. Or is that another "de facto policy", i.e. one that doesn't actually exist? Tartan357 (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote keep on an article about Mars Oblast if the Kremlin claimed they were annexing the planet. Show me any first level administrative division of a global power that doesn't have at least a stub page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles have SIGCOV so they get kept. This one doesn't (at least not in its current state). This is established by sources, not editors voting. This AfD is about a flag, not an administrative division, BTW. Tartan357 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flags get covered by vexillogist publications as fast as they get to print. They instantly have multiple independent sources. For notability, sources don't need to be in the article, they just need to exist. If you want to argue about "too soon" because they haven't yet been printed you might as well argue against the sun won't rise in the morning. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But in an AfD on an article, you do have to present those sources once challenged on notability in order to back up your claims regarding that. So, do those vexillology sources exist regarding this flag or were you just speculating? SilverserenC 05:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should also consider the fact that the source cited isn't about the flag. I don't just mean it's not primarily about the flag, I mean it's not about it at all. It never mentions it, much less the design or its history, which is the whole point of a vexillology article. The source is simply being cited to indicate that there exists a photo with the flag in it. It's hardly visible in the photo too. Using that source as the basis of this article is arguably original research. But even if there existed a number of decent sources about the flag itself, it'd be hard to justify a standalone article when we have much better target articles where we could describe the flag.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also, for AfD, have to claim that those sources do not and will not exist. It's bad faith to nominate an article for deletion simply because the original editor (who appropriately marked it as a stub) jumped the gun on publication. Considering the project has bots that regular make stub articles about governments and their adornment I'm not willing to ding the editor nor delete the article for being early on a foregone eventuality. The nominator is also threatening the original editor that they will be blocked for creating a hoax article when it's clearly not a hoax. It's a valid stub. It's a nomination in bad faith because of partisan views. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"You also, for AfD, have to claim that those sources do not and will not exist." No, that'd be WP:CRYSTAL. Knowing the future is not a prerequisite for AfD. For what it's worth, I did actually look to see if sources about the flag existed. I had no luck no matter how I phrased the search prompt. All I found was Wikimedia content and a Deviantart drawing. If you're arguing the article is notable because it's possible that sources could exist in the future, I'm afraid that's just not how WP:GNG works, and I ask that you consider retracting your many accusations of bad faith and accusations of partisan POV pushing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As creator of the page, I have taken this feedback onboard and moved the content to Flag of Novorossiya. I agree with the post above that that page should be renamed. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm persuaded by the arguments that this is a separate subject from the biblical article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abomination (Judaism)[edit]

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

As pointed out in the AfD for Abomination (biblical) by @Ovinus: This is an almost exclusively POV- and OR-based article that should be reconstructed anew if we are to revive it. It should probably be folded in with Abomination (Bible) under a new title if we want to keep anything. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, and Judaism. Pbritti (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is actually pretty clearly based on on the article from The Jewish Encyclopedia (which is cited). Another source that should be helpful is "Abomination" in the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion[42]. It just needs the off topic material trimmed, which I will do in a second. Merging all information about Judaism into articles about the Bible would be a mistake. Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd encourage a review of Abomination (Bible), which already is significantly about the Jewish understanding of the concept. The articles are redundant, and following the removal of the extraneous info we are left with a rather stubby article that dovetails well into a broader understanding of the topic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I obviously looked at the proposed merge target before suggesting not merging there. Rabbinic Judaism and later/contemporary Judaism is a decidedly broader topic than "in the Bible". Jahaza (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I would encourage you to read my original AfD recommendation with the phrase "under a new title". The two articles, if you review them closely, essentially overlap in full. As such, one has to be deleted or the duplicate coverage needs to be removed from one and replaced with coverage of a different topic. I selected the target based on lack of vandalism from CIR editors. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Abomination (Bible). This is an "Old Testament" i.e. Hebrew Bible subject, with nothing from the Christian New Testament. I do not think this is a case where Jewish and Christians are have different theological interpretations. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This covers rabbinic Judaism's (which is what is largely relevant to modern Judaism) view on the issue, which is not at Abomination (Bible). It could be cleaned up a bit, but it's a distinct article and should be. Folding it in would be a mess of rabbinic interpretations and biblical interpretations, the latter of which apply to multiple religions. TartarTorte 01:16, 5 October 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 Abomination (Bible). Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I took a break from Wikipedia. My page should not have been deleted but maybe merged or redirected to Abomination (Bible). The Wikipedia pages are two different TALKING POINTS (perspectives). They don't cover the same information either. The objectors who advocated for deletion were being biased, hateful & prejudice and were trying to silence the legitimate interpretation(s) or other argument(s) I gave. They don't know Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek very well. For example, sometimes Latin & Greek words have a first meaning that is different than the words that they are made up. That first meaning is the most common MEANING (usage) & the words that they are made up of are not necessarily applicable. Abomination in Latin means: "Abhorrence [as a bad omen]." It can also be interpreted as: "something (detestable, hateful, loathsome, unclean)." Defining it also as: "vile, wicked, sinful" [Abomination (Bible)] is probably not correct. There are other Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek & Latin words for those WORDS (meanings). An "abhorrence" is usually something that is sinful; but that doesn't mean it is part of its meaning.
The Greek word PARAKLETOS "Counselor [as called to one's side]" is another word where its meaning in usage is different than the words it is made up of.
Said differently, not every "abhorrence" was a bad omen & not every "counselor" was called to one's side (Job 12:17). BiblicalSch0lar (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abomination (biblical)[edit]

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

Mess of original research that is just opinion and analysis of primary sources, and not suitable for an article. Of the sources, only the dictionary-type ones are reliable. Most are strange sources like "www.homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com". It's conceivable that this topic is notable, but I'm suggesting we blow it up. Ovinus (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Judaism. Ovinus (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete we need to remove this overt POV primary-source, original research article ASAP. A controlled detonation per the nom seems to be safest approach. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, we already have this article elsewhere: Abomination (Bible). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. POV junk. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one isn't rescuable. Jahaza (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with all of the above. Largely original research and the sources provided do not give the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. This could plausibly be a notable topic but anyone who did want to create an article would benefit from this one not existing. WJ94 (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the much more coherent Abomination (Bible). Needless duplication. WaggersTALK 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although redirects are cheap, I'm not sure I see the purpose of one, as this is a fairly unlikely disambiguation and there's nothing worth preserving. Ovinus (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Abomination (Bible). That is a much better article on the same subject. Nothing worth merging, I think. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Abomination (Bible) would be an unnecessary task. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 07:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Abomination (Bible). Looking at the present page, I could not see what the above objections were about. I had to go back and look at the history, because a 40K article by BiblicalSch0lar (talk · contribs) has been reduced to a 4K article by Pbritti (talk · contribs). What remains today includes other ancient translations and is worth merging. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 5 October 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 and with a disagreement as to whether friendlys are notable, I don't see this discussion reaching a consensus. Star Mississippi 01:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Jordan International Tournament[edit]

2022 Jordan International Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Friendly tournament that is lacking notability. There is no wide coverage of it except for some Arabic websites. Sakiv (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is about four friendly matches only. There is nothing significant about it and all the information added to it if any can be absorbed in the articles dedicated to the national teams. Unfortunately, the article is not the only one. Recently, many people have started creating articles with weak notability for any friendly competition. The article has to be notable in the future as well, not just the present, and that's what I doubt about this.--Sakiv (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The matches being friendlies is not really relevant to whether the article is notable or not, otherwise no friendly tournament at any level would have a page on Wikipedia. It depends on the coverage/notability, this a tournament held between four national teams during the FIFA international window and has coverage from several large media outlets, both English and Arabic, this is shown from the sources in the page. Hashim-afc (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a 4 match friendly tournament, no need for a specific article on every friendly tournament any teams have. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Articles from AFC and beIN Sports about the tournament, for example, is that not evidence of notability? Hashim-afc (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Hashim and sources in the article. None of them are exemplary but there are quite a few articles about the tournament in what look like reasonable newspapers to me, though I don't know the Arabic media landscape. Coverage only existing in Arabic websites seems irrelevant, we wouldn't say "coverage only exists in some American websites". Rusalkii (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - tournaments where national teams of different nations are participants are indeed notable. Haueirlan (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - friendly tournaments between national teams are more than usual and almost nothing is notable about them. If the competitions are held annually, then the situation changes. These days, a friendly tournament is held between Tanzania, Libya and Uganda, as well as one between Brunei, Laos and the Maldives. There are no articles for those.--Sakiv (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Tournaments between National teams are definitely notable. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 08:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see a fully notable article. This sounds more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-argument.
HugoAcosta9 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 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 Ceol (compilation series). Likewise for the other album articles. Sandstein 09:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceol '09[edit]

Ceol '09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded without improvement, comment was that others in the series are notable, but if you look at those articles, they are in just as bad shape as this one. Searches did not turn up anything to show this passes GNG. I think perhaps an overall list article for all the discs in this series might be the way to go. Onel5969 TT me 14:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that could be best, still just removing one and not the others would look silly. The whole reason I made the article was cause of that very reason. Perhaps something like "List of Seachtain na Gaelige releases"? The articles themselves also leave out a number of details like for example I belive they were given out as free "prizes" with some newspapers. A list of all releasess would be much more concise and contain more vaulable information. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 21:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Move/merge/redirect. Having completed a WP:BEFORE that surfaced sources enough to support some expansion, I'm not convinced that WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM are met. For this individual album in the compilation series. There is however likely an argument to be made that the series as a whole is notable. Which seems to be the argument the creator is making. Anyway, as noted above (including by the nom), it seems that the best course here (as an AtD) is likely to:
The resulting arrangement would be similar to equivalent articles on series of compilation albums. Like Just the Hits (compilation series) or Shine (compilation series) or any of the other many similar members of the Category:Compilation album series cat. Guliolopez (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- Just the fact of Notable Artistes Involved and one of its song being recreated on an Oscar winning song doesn't satisfies WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM, If NOT Deleted merge per Guliolopez above. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 10:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all four: As nice as Guliolopez's plan sounds, I can't find any coverage of the series that would convince me that this hypothetical combo article would pass WP:NLIST. The coverage added to '09 definitely doesn't convince me that this article is saveable, and I also haven't seen anything for the rest of the series that would save those. QuietHere (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Ceol (compilation series) and merge all the others to the target per Guliolopez's argument. None of the compilations meet WP:NALBUM alone, but the compilation meets WP:NLIST. SBKSPP (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SBKSPP what makes you so sure that there's an NLIST pass here? I haven't seen any coverage of this series as a group, neither presented here nor in my own search, which is what the policy asks for ("it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines"). Is there something I've missed? QuietHere (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources which cover the series as a group include this (source: Raidió Rí-Rá), this (source: The University Observer), and this (source: Hot Press [paywalled]). While, I'll be the first to admit, there are not many English-language sources which deal with the compilation series as a whole, I'm not sure its fair to say that there aren't any such sources... Guliolopez (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I admit I'm still not 100% convinced of the plan (the sourcing you list here is something but just barely so from what I can tell), I would rather throw my support behind it than see this closed as no consensus, so consider this a changed vote in favor of your move + merge proposal since there's more support for it than just deleting everything. Let the combined list be made and if it turns out to be no good then there's always time for another AfD (not assuming this is necessary though). QuietHere (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The new sources provided appear to be database listings like IMDb, there are no reviews or any written content besides a cast list. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insaaf Ki Jung[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE. All current citations are databases or dead links. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DareshMohan: I added a link about the film published by Bollywood Hungama[44], please check it out. ZanciD (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. Shahid • Talk2me 10:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. @Shshshsh: @Suryabeej:. I might be missing something, but when I click onto Bollywood Hungama it states Sorry currently there are no critic reviews available for this movie. Anyone know if there was a critic review that was archived, because otherwise this is just a database entry, similar to this link provided- cast and song listings are routine? Per WP:NFILM, To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. These are IMHO routine databases that fail to demonstrate significant coverage that meets WP:GNG, or full critic reviews that might pass WP:NFILM. Further, I couldn't find evidence that high box office could pass GNG/NFILM, quantity doesn't indicate notability. Unfortunately, my WP:BEFORE search mainly found trivial mentions or an 1980s film of a similar name, which has more hits. Therefore, I appreciate your efforts in rescuing this article, but currently they are insufficient IMO. Again, many thanks, and let's agree to disagree, please ping me if you find more refs! VickKiang (talk) 21:18, 11 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_October_5&oldid=1115791390"