Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 09	August 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moshpit Tragedy Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted by previous Afd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moshpit_Tragedy_Records I don't know why/how it got restored. I see it in Deletion Review, but there's nothing compelling there other than something about history and PageRank. Anyhow, it's still non-notable. It also fails enduring notability. Graywalls (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Canada. Graywalls (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nom, the article fails WP:GNG, however it also fails WP:SYNTH, only having one citation, and it's a passing mention of the record label. IncompA 08:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IncompA, please sign any comments you make in a deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I sometimes forget to sign my posts and usually when I miss them a bot fixes it but this didn't happen this time. IncompA 09:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Graywalls makes a good argument on how the label fails enduring notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:55, 11 August 2023 (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!} 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilasha (2023 film)[edit]

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

Does not have the minimum requirement of two reliable reviews (only has one - Sakshi [1]). This does not look notable; moreover the page has no About Us section. Has one okay production source and one trailer source. DareshMohan (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Karnataka ^talk 20:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given there's only one review, I'd suggest a Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2023.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't think a Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2023 is the best idea considering it's not mentioned on that page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add reliable sources to the article. thanks.--Batthini Vinay Kumar Goud (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small film with no notability (fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM lacks significant coverage). Batthini Vinay Kumar Goud added one citation, which other than reciting the bare facts of production, says: The trailer of this movie was released by famous actor Prithvi at Prasad Preview Theater in Hyderabad. On this occasion, he said, "There is no difference between a small movie and a big movie. Whatever is played is a big movie. The trailer is very good. Happy to make this film with a good point. --Bejnar (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2023 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izabela Kisio-Skorupa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability, she's just a minor Internet "celeb" known to only a small number of people, even Polish Wikipedia deleted an "article" about her because it only contained references to gossip sites, just like here. Chomczurek065 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-written, full of correctly assigned references and covers the well-known person of the online culture, especially among the youth, still mentioned by important media figures like Kuba Wojewódzki or Karolina Korwin-Piotrkowska, both journalists. Kisio-Skorupa not only is an inspiring actress and already a singer with more and more songs released digitally, but also a personality with the history of oft-discussed controversies. There is absolutely no reason to delete that article apart from your personal disgust with the questionable, but undeniable phenomenon of such people like her, Paris Hilton or Tiffany Pollard. Greetings, Ciastkoo (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Unfunny didn't laught. Try harder.

But in case you're gonna come up with something equally dumb: "because it only contained references to gossip sites, just like here". Here's the main argument. Stop littering Wikipedia with "joke" articles, nobody finds it funny. Kk? Chomczurek065 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Businesspeople. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing for notability found, most sources are red-highlighted per sourcebot. I can't find sources we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Ciastkoo. Kamdenek (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source review would be helpful as it's claimed that the sources used in this article are "gossip sites", hence unreliable by Wikipedia standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided are "gossip sites" per se, and if there any dubious ones provided, seeing that there are twenty seven ones provided, from an article in a Polish news magazine Wprost to an episode of TVN series or Spotify music releases, if need be, some parts of the text shall be removed or reorganised instead of deleting the whole article. Ciastkoo (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. The one paragraph mention in the weekly Wprost (2014) concludes (in Polish), For now, Mrs. Kisio-Skorupa has gone to gossip portals, but something tells me that in a moment she will end up like Trybson on the couch at Wojewódzki. Or on Dancing with the Stars. I feel very sorry for Ola. Really. All fluff trying to make herself a celebrity. --Bejnar (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree's analysis. ArcAngel (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2023 (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. Renaming or splitting this article is an editing decision which can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia in ethnic minority communities[edit]

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

I can't see how this will ever satisfy Wikipedia NPOV – "ethnic minority" is obviously very culture-dependent, and whole article has been tagged with UK and US-centrism for a while now. If we keep this article, it definitely needs to be renamed or split off into two on the US and UK (and deleting the current title). Thoughts? GnocchiFan (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:TNT or rename, the entire premise of the article is problematic, for the reasons outlines by @GnocchiFan CT55555(talk) 20:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Homophobia in ethnic minority communities in the United States and United Kingdom, then. The topic in those two countries is well-researched. Homophobia in countries where homophobia is government policy might be covered better in a separate article or series of articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the research focus on that topic (the homophobia within ethnic minorities in the UK and US" collectively?) CT55555(talk) 02:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The claim that the article is inherently NPOV is problematic; it implies either that the concept of homophobia is itself impossible to discuss without a POV, or that it becomes impossible within the context of minority populations. Neither is true. There are unique drivers (and lots of unique RSs) within all sorts of minority communities. As for the US/UK centric, deleting an article for that reason will leave us with a very small encyclopaedia. This should be a fork from Homophobia that deals with Homophobia in Minority Communities as a whole. The Homophobia article is already too long, and there is enough distinction in RS for a valid fork if we remove the 'ethnic' limiter. 'Ethnic' is, itself, a problematic term as well. Removing 'ethnic' might expand the editor pool to communities where 'ethic' might be problematic: Are Dalits ethnics? How about the Afd and III Path or anyone else on the Radical Right in any country? Widening the scope might widen the editor pool. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a textbook case of either WP:DINC or WP:DIC: Why not include examples from latin american countries? Iterresise (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split: Not sure if this one can be saved via WP:TNT, because the term "ethnic minority" completely depends on the subject countries. This article generally only covers two countries where the ethnicities discussed are minorities, therefore I find it more appropriate to split the article into Homophobia in ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom and Homophobia in ethnic minority communities in the United States to at least have some sense of WP:NPOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The title is neutral. The problem is the lack of examples outside of the United States and the United Kingdom.

"ethnic minority communities" is correct. On the other hand, we wouldn't say "deaf minority communities" even though the deaf community is a minority. Iterresise (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my suggestion to remove the 'ethnic' adjective entirely. If this were simply renamed Homophobia in Minority Communities, it would broaden the base of editors who might contribute, including communities like those with hearing or visually impairment, various stripes of social separatists, castes and classes, etc., none of which are clear-cut ethnicities. Regardless, this is not a ripe article for deletion; it is an opportunity to improve our encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So this would include sexual minorities including bisexuals and homosexuals who are homophobic since they are minorities and some of them form their own communities. I guess that would make sense since some homosexuals are confused before them come out.... What is the point of changing the title and thus/therefore the scope of the article when the research is about ethnicity and race? Iterresise (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are RS on self-fear amongst homosexuals of homosexuals, I think it would be a good addition to a wider, more robust, more sustainable article. The point of changing the title and thus/therefore the scope of the article when the research is about ethnicity and race would be to expand the scope of the article and thus improve the pool of sources (and especially editors) whose contributions would improve Wikipedia. It is possible that the sources are about ethnicity and US/UK-centric because the intersectionality of race and seuxality are at the centre of the culture war in both countries. Perhaps widening the scope would open the door to diverse RSs (and editors) focused on homophobia by socioeconomic segment, caste, class, disability, etc. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might, but the scope is about "Homophobia in ethnic minority communities" [own emphasis]. This phenomenon is found in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, etc.. Homophobia in the disability community is uncommon and probably nonexistent. They face work discrimination and that is their primary concern. Iterresise (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the current scope of the article. I think the scope definition is a key part of the problem here, and the reason that this is even under consideration for AfD. I proposed renaming it to expand that scope. Yes, getting more input from other parts of the Anglosphere would be great (and, yes, I know what et cetera means), but I don't think adding to the 'width' of worldview is enough to make this a viable, valuable article without added depth. It's too shallow and too easy to fall into the US/UK culture war churn. FYI: Your assertion that Homophobia in the disability community is uncommon and probably nonexistent is profoundly misguided as I can tell you from personal experience even though I haven't searched for RS on that. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any RSs to support your assertion? Iterresise (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article is either irredeemable or the start of a worthwhile, expanded article. More opinions would help. Also, a discussion about a possible rename can occur if this article is Kept, it's important not to think it has to happen simultaneously with this deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Elttaruuu (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, split or rename This is not a case where deletion improves anything.★Trekker (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2023 (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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 01:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Padmini 2018 film[edit]

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

The entire article consists of a summary of T. K. Padmini. Did this release? Not sure. There are no reviews. This is a non-notable documentary. DareshMohan (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page should be renamed (for example: Padmini (biopic)). In 2019 the director was interviewed and the film not released yet. It seems 16 December 2023 is the new release date now (says Filmibeat). So, either wait, redirect to director/main actress or draftify, just like with various articles currently discussed and whose production has received substantial coverage.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a film doesn't release, Filmibeat puts an arbitrary date in the future as the release date. I can guarantee you that this film will never release. DareshMohan (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there support for a Redirect or to Draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems reasonable. This seems to fall just short of the WP:GNG threshold at WP:NFILM with the available sources, but there's a good chance it'll become notable in the foreseeable future. Should not be in mainspace until then, though. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 21:05, 17 August 2023 (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 G5 (sockpuppet of User:DPLIVE202. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Hindu Temple and community centre[edit]

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

Can't find any secondary coverage apart from routine coverage of a burglary to meet WP:NCHURCH BrigadierG (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 10 August 2023 (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!} 00:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irikku..M.D Akathundu[edit]

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

Non-notable: I'm not seeing anything here beyond iMDB reviews and mirrors. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page should be renamed Irikku M.D. Akathundu (without (..) before M.D.). As for what to do with it, maybe redirect to PG Vishwambharan if not improved?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be a notable older Malayalam films (hence poor sourcing). The villain role was mentioned here: [2], [3]. There is also a mention in a company Chertala News albeit about an actor: [4] from [5]. There is also a book mention: [6]. DareshMohan (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just passing mentions in reference to one of the actors in the film. They don't show any coverage of the film itself. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these don't constitute WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irrikku M.D. Akathudu. The film was reportedly a hit. DareshMohan (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a message board and doesn't constitute a reliable source. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 04:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An article doesn’t need to be spammed with citations to be notable. And you should not that articles emanating from none western states would naturally have lesser citations than western articles, most especially if they aww older. Amaekuma (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article name has a typo and needs to be moved assuming it gets kept. - Indefensible (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more opinions on this one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NFILM. No indication that any of the alternative criteria there are met, and there is clearly no GNG coverage. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 21:02, 17 August 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Bansal[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage of her that isn't either routine, PR, or mainly about her venture capital firm with her only mentioned in passing. BrigadierG (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about the best I could find that wasn't a PR piece [7]. Sourcing used in the article isn't helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:57, 11 August 2023 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Chu[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and is a case of WP:BLP1E, being a former beauty pageant contestant. IncompA 22:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, Korea, and United States of America. IncompA 22:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable pageant contestant. Many hits on the name, which is rather common, but none found for this person. BLP1E indeed as she has never done anything of note since. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject does not meet any notability guidelines. Falls into WP:BLP1E. User:Let'srun 02:14, 14 August 2023 (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. A7, G4, salted page — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motzoid India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing anything here apart from self-published sources and press releases, so this fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and England. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination and also due to the article's bad track record. IncompA 21:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some coverage in reliable sources, we can put this article as a stub and then add more information later on as we find. Teachaiwala2007 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to show that coverage in relable sources exists here in this discussion. If the company is not notable, then there is no point to waiting for more information, as the article will be deleted. Press releases are not reliable sources. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, obviously created for WP:PROMO reasons. Please note this is the third deletion on record, please don't let this article be recreated a 4th time. BrigadierG (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - fails WP:GNG and has been repeatedly recreated by socks; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhumik Pravin (2nd nomination). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps consider upgrading to a vote to salt BrigadierG (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zailín Rodríguez[edit]

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

The subject has made at least six appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. IncompA 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:20, 13 August 2023 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Corcho[edit]

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

The subject has made at least one appearance for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination, the article fails WP:GNG. As per my research, it also seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. She seems to only be notable because of her one appearance for the Cuba women's national football team. IncompA 21:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:20, 13 August 2023 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T-shirt size[edit]

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

I cannot quite see what this article is meant to be about. Therre are already various article on garment sizes, for instance Clothing sizes. I can't see why T-shirt sizes merit a separate article, so am dubious about the value of simply creating a reddirect.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You have to be kidding me. There is no way the practices for labeling t-shirt sizes is encyclopedic, and that's not even what the article is about...the attempts to link the subject to CSS class names in Bootstrap (among other topics) is OR to the point of hallucination. None of the sources cited that I could access even talks about t-shirt size, only mentions size as an analogy.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to T-shirt? Agree that this page has no virtue to exist. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article cites two Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) standards (JIS L 4004 Sizing systems for men's garments and JIS L 4005 Sizing Systems for Women's Garments), but I don't know whether those standards include specific sizing for T-shirts. I do not know whether a corresponding ISO, ANSI or trade association standard exists. Canada has Canada Standard Sizes, but only for children's clothing. If Japan's standards are the only ones available, then the article will focus on those. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The JIS standards are only cited to source variants like LLL instead of XXL. — Christoph Päper 13:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“T-shirt size” is used as a term to refer to ordinal size categories S, M and L (and more) even outside the clothing context. That’s what this article is trying to be about. They are prevalent in (agile) software development effort estimation for instance,^[1]^[2]^[3] but I tried to broaden the scope of the article because S/M/L or SM/MD/LG are also used in (graphic) design^[4]^[5] and retail – importantly, the English abbreviations are often used in other languages verbatim. Sometimes, just one of them, usually XL or XXL, is used without the others as a label to highlight an unusual size of a product. — Christoph Päper 13:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment Small, Medium and Large are simply ordinary words; I fail to see what difference it makes when they are applied to T-shirts. The article does not enlighten me. I note that the given refs are entirely fatuous.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Abbreviating extra by X, duplicating it and using (X)S, M, (X)L outside English is not ordinary. Calling something “T-shirt size”, when it’s not actually about clothing, is not ordinary. 08:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Clothing sizes. Apart from the trivial duplication increments, all material is already present there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
- This article is not about clothing sizes. — Christoph Päper 08:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ How to use T-Shirt Sizing to Estimate Projects [2023 • Asana]
^ Agile Estimation Techniques: A Deep Dive Into T-Shirt Sizing
^ Project Estimation Through T-Shirt size - Medium
^ Tailwind: Font Size
^ Material Design: Break Points

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because several comments do not appear to acknowledge that the article is about the use of t-shirt sizes as a metaphor, rather than actual clothing sizes. That does not mean the article should be kept, but I do not want to create the appearance that we are deleting articles without correctly understanding what the subject is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to T-shirt. This page is a joke and has no reason to exist. IncompA 20:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coment: I think there's a broader mathematics/computer science point to this article about a type of data (as I parse the first sentence, a variable type where various physical sizes are lumped together into e.g. "small", you can put the different values e.g. "small", "medium", "large" into order, but you can't necessarily tell the absolute size of the shirt just from knowing it's a "medium"). If there are any sources for the usage of this term in this context outside the sizing of clothing, most of the rationale for deletion vanishes. That might be a big if, though. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a confusing SYNTH of various clothing sizing criteria and standards, without a clear narrative. I can't see that T-shirts are sized any differently than other articles of clothing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
commentI'd believe in the rationale for this article if it made any reference to units real people use, such as the Belgium or the Wales.TheLongTone (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The nomination statement didn't provide a clear reason for deletion in the first place, and other participants pointed that out. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023 Pakistan by-elections[edit]

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

No election held on 28 May nor after Panam2014 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason cancelled video games also have articles/sections, anything that was planned but didn't happen (as long as it's properly sourced) has an article/section. Being a cancelled election could probably be reflected in the title somehow or the article's contents be merged someplace, but just because it got cancelled doesn't magically mean erase the validity of the content. This nomination is throwing the baby out with the bathwater basically.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mythdon's reasoning. IncompA 20:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merging into 2023 Pakistani parliamentary crisis? Panam2014 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would agree to Panam2014's proposal as a fallback, but I think there is plenty here to justify a separate article. Something not happening due to crises or simple cancellation has never been a valid cause for deletion, especially where there is reasonable, sustained, non-local coverage (all of which are shown by the cites). As an extreme example, The world completely failed to end in 2012, but we still have a superb ~130kb article on it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances). (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syd Ward (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. IncompA 19:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and United Kingdom. IncompA 19:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances) - there is likely old newspaper coverage out there, the issue is finding it. Giant Snowman 20:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as WP:ATD per GiantSnowman above. A standalone article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic News Production System[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Software, United Kingdom, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mere 4 gnews hits. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be enough to pass GNG [[8]][[9]][[10]] It is also commonly noted by its abbreviation, ENPS, making it somewhat dificult to find sources User:Let'srun 18:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per LibStar. Kind regards –––ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Libstar.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Libstar. IncompA 20:32, 10 August 2023 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comrat Wine Region[edit]

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

Short unreferenced article, no equivalents in other Wikipedias. It originally was longer but that was just information on Gagauzia rather than the wine region. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine and Moldova. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I found a couple of sources that look reliable [11][12], however none of those are especially in-depth and tend to focus more on one large winery than the region as a whole. Maybe some sources in Moldovan or Russian would establish more notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of "Diversitatea regiunilor vitivinicole în Republica Moldova". ibn.idsi.md. Retrieved 2023-07-27. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 01:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring programming language popularity[edit]

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

Reads like an essay someone submitted for homework, rather than something that should be included in an encyclopaedia. AtlasDuane (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. AtlasDuane (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete - reeks of original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY. This is the very definition of WP:OR. The thesis is here: ... that sum up to say Python is the top programming language of 2021. The rest is original research. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a WP:OR disaster. Take 'em down chief. IncompA 19:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sirfurboy casualdejekyll 23:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As evidenced by all the primary sources in the article, measuring programming language popularity is an active field of endeavor and possibly a notable topic. What we would need would be secondary reliable sources comparing and contrasting the kinds of metrics developed and how they are measured. There are secondary sources like [13] and [14] that take this approach, but I don't believe they are reliable. Hence I agree with deletion for now, but am happy to reconsider should secondary RS be found. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, but in principle, it could be promising once the research catches up. Mason (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 02:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sakarwar[edit]

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

Seperate article on this topic is not plausible as the Sources are not enough for making it WP:GNG compliant. Out of 5-6 source, 3-4 are about role of a particular family in 1857 rebellion, which belonged to this sub caste. There are not enough sources available for this sub-caste itself. Hence it should be deleted or merged into Rajput clan. Admantine123 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Admantine123 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 10 August 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 02:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bonnitcha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable under WP:NPROF, is an associate professor , and has been deleted twice before. Further, there was question in those deletion discussions about whether he was with the olympic team [15] Mason (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with the nom. The person has a very low h-index (13) and is not mentioned beyond primary sources and Rhodes which is not a defining characteristic for academics. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination and FuzzyMagma. The article's track record is also something to take note of. IncompA 21:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable sports person. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn'y pass PROF, and I don't see sports notability. --Mvqr (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and discussion, I concur. Cabrils (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gardella Racing[edit]

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

Defunct racing team. Article has had maintenance tags since 2010. Very little in the way of sources. I do not believe this passes WP:GNG as they don't seem to have much in the way of significant coverage. Qcne (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about all for coverage [16], sadly it's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. Fails WP:GNG and has very little in the way of coverage. IncompA 21:38, 10 August 2023 (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!} 03:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bizuum Yadok[edit]

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

Not notable as an author, neither notable as an academic and certainly not notable as a table tennis player. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC. Sourcing is passing mentions, own work, no SIGCOV, no RS. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bizuum Yadok is notable as an author and poet. He has authored King of the Jungle (a novel) and Echoes of the Plateau:Poems which are found online. A Google search shows he's notable. He's mentioned in this article Sueddie Agema. Some of his poems, short stories and articles are published in reliable sources like news papers, and books. They're also verifiable. He's making impact as a 21st century writer. The article can, however, still be improved instead of being deleted. Thanks Ezra Cricket (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A person whose works are published in reliable sources like news, google books, and journals shows their relevance and importance to humanity and the society at large. His works and contributions are covered in secondary and reliable sources. Bizuum Yadok meets WP:GNG, WP: Writer and WP: Academic. Moreover, the article's being expanded. Thanks, Ezra Cricket (talk). Ezra Cricket (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I do see a lot of quality writing from this individual, I don't see many sources about the individual for WP:BASIC, or sources that provide evidence that the subject meets WP:WRITER via their work. Ezra Cricket (or anyone else) can you provide WP:THREE sources that demonstrate one or the other. Also please note WP:NOTCV, so this article is not in a good state. Leaning delete for now. —siro χ o 07:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is a CV. Subject has produced a lot of work, but GS does not show any of it being cited. 128.252.212.40 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to acknowledge large changes that have happened to the article since its nomination last month. It could be that they have resulted in a longer article, not an improved article, but that is for participants to judge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fine to relist, but with content like this: Bizum's hobbies are: Reading, Creative Writing, watching Films, and Playing Table Tennis, you probably could have boldly closed. :) 128.252.212.40 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [17] has serialized their work, but sadly, this appears to be another Nigerian PROMO article, more fluff than substance. I'm glad the individual enjoys table tennis, more of a baseball fan myself. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination, and with content in the article like "Bizum's hobbies are: Reading, Creative Writing, watching Films, and Playing Table Tennis", he just feels poorly sourced and not notable. IncompA 22:05, 10 August 2023 (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 Tripadvisor#History. WP:SNOW. Targeting the History section as an editorial decision. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TravelPod[edit]

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

The article is almost entirely based on references to the (now defunct) website. Because the site is down I can't verify whether the "positive press" described by the site was substantial or trivial. Since it's been defunct since 2017, it's unlikely to become notable. Either delete or maybe redirect to TripAdvisor. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Websites. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TripAdvisor I guess. Nothing for notability found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TripAdvisor. You know an article is doomed when it's referencing its own shuttered service. IncompA 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TripAdvisor: worth, at best, a subsection there. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TripAdvisor with the option to merge, at most, a couple of sentences into that if there are reliable independent references to support that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Echo what was said above. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TripAdvisor per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trip Advisor Nothing is present here that leads to this subject getting to any GNG for a standalone article. User:Let'srun 13:37, 13 August 2023 (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!} 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin T. Onaka[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, only notable for verifying Barack Obama's birth certificate. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable civil servant. The birth certificate thing is neither here nor there. No references found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hawaii. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain

Dr. Onaka was the recipient of a prestigious national award, the Halbert L. Dunn award, and served as president of a national vital records trade association. These accomplishments made the newspapers in Hawaii. Wikipedia would better served by more content about NAPHSIS and its role in setting the policies that the United States uses to maintain the integrity of its vital records.

Of course the Obama birth certificate mess got him some national attention, a number of times, as his certifications became the basis fore state decisions to allow Obama on the Ballot, and as evidence in lawsuits such as Taitz v. Mississippi.

I would also point out that Wikipedia, at the time this entry was created, was looking for more content about notable Hawaiians. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination, this article is a pretty clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. The only notable thing this man has done is verify Obama's birth certificate. IncompA 21:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing usable on Newspapers.com, and the only stuff I could find on plain Google was trivial mentions about Obama's birth certificate, and a book he wrote for the Hawaiian state government. (Also, apparently he was involved in a gay rights lawsuit, but that was just more trivial mentions of "the state registrar in Hawaii did so-and-so".) Nothing I saw seemed GNG-usable - all mentions of him are only about what he does as part of his job. casualdejekyll 23:14, 10 August 2023 (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!} 20:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naledi Mogadime[edit]

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

Non-notable, small parts in the movie, not much coverage found for the tv show. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Africa. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coment Found few soruces 1, 2, 3 but these seems like PR articles. Charsaddian (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 19:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 10 August 2023 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shallipopi[edit]

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

Non-notable streaming music person. No sourcing found beyond what's in the article, which isn't RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage of him, for some fraud event. That doesn't help notability and can be seen as an attack if we were to source it here. Not meeting notability for criminals either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:His stream is very much notable as he is listed on top music charts in his country with good rankings, Turntable charts and Apple Music and i added the independent links for each Tobiladun (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC for having wide news coverage.Naomijeans (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are not great but enough coverage to suggest notability based on his existing material and likely to increase over time. - Indefensible (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2023 (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 Duinen van Texel National Park. The merge arguments are more compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecomare[edit]

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

No significant, in-depth, and independent coverage in reliable sources. It does not meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Netherlands. MarioGom (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See additional references and other information including books in the corresponding Dutch article at nl:Ecomare. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough significant, in-depth and independent coverage to be found in reliable sources. This for example is from the island´s tourist information desk.

Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above and the Dutch article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If not keep, then at least merge to Duinen van Texel National Park. I don't read Dutch to assess the sourcing or the Dutch-language article, but at a minimum this should be covered within the park's article. Star Mississippi 18:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Duinen van Texel National Park. While the subject is notable, the article MUST NOT be kept as the amount of text it contains is less than the correct amount of text on this subject at Duinen van Texel National Park. In other words, this article should be considered an unjustified SPINOUT. It's not even a SPINOFF. When much more is written on the subject, a SPINOFF can be created. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I open to this as well. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: While this article is substantially sourced and notable in some way, there is a possibility that a merge with Duinen van Texel National Park is recommended since such article mentions the affected article. HarukaAmaranth (話) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may have to change my mind over the next few days, sock puppet investigation regarding the user who created this page ongoing. HarukaAmaranth (話) 01:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HarukaAmaranth, I don't think that should change whether we keep an article if it's useful. Our guidelines don't encourage this.

A lot of our content was created by sockpuppets, meat puppets, now-banned editors (some very prolific) and folks with conflicts of interests. We could be busy for months shrinking this thing from 6.5 million articles to several million.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you, just wanted to know. If that's the case, I'll just say this article needs merging. HarukaAmaranth (話) 02:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between those advocating Keeping this article and those editors who think a Merge would be more appropriate. Definitely no consensus here for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Duinen van Texel National Park. A lot of the material on the Dutch article is unreferenced or actually WP:PRIMARY so expansion by translating from Dutch is not recommendable unless other sources can be found. Therefore I agree with Gidonb that merging back into the parent article is more appropriate. - Indefensible (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – has adequate coverage in references. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2023 (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 Brown Peninsula#Dreary Isthmus. (isn't that a great place name?) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dreary Isthmus[edit]

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

UtherSRG (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything but databases and other, unrelated dreary isthmi. casualdejekyll 23:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isthmi? Isthmuses? Isthmodes? XD - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]
delete GNIS most certainly does not confer notability (based on loads of precedent), and for that matter claims about the nature of the location need to be validated against other sources. Mangoe (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merged into Brown Peninsula.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Brown Peninsula. Djflem (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Brown Peninsula#Dreary Isthmus. Dr. Blofeld has already done the merge, so change the article to a redirect. This is the approach recommended in WP:GEONATURAL for named natural features where little more than the name and location are available. The redirect can be turned back into a full article if the isthmus becomes more notable for some reason. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there have have been a few editors trying to delete the Antarctica stubs rather than having the common sense to merge the articles themselves. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Wikipedia is meant to be a gazetteer, among other functions. To make the gazetteer complete, minor features that do not warrant a stand-alone article should be listed in a parent article, giving the available information. It is incorrect to purge the information from Wikipedia.Aymatth2 (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP is not intended to be a gazetteer. Frankly I think the statement that it has "some elements of a gazetteer" ought to be struck as contradicting WP:GNG requirements. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the Wikipedia:Five pillars says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."
Both WP:GNG and WP:NGEO say that topics which do not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article may be covered in another article. In this case, Dreary Isthmus is not notable, but can be covered in Brown Peninsula#Dreary Isthmus. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2023 (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 and redirect‎ to Luhansk People’s Republic#Government. The keep arguments are more in hope and expectation then source based. As already mentiined elsewhere the redirect is an editorial decision Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Nikitin[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:Notability, no source about him before and after 2014. Panam2014 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uzbekistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as a former prime minister, albeit of a country recognized by almost nobody other than Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: LPR was a at best a proto-state but certainly not initially. Panam2014 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An earlier version of the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vasily_Nikitin&oldid=1123783394 had additional references, some of which were removed because an editor thought they were not reliable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 19:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NPOL does not extend "inherent" notability to the heads of provisional breakaway governments that aren't internationally recognized as legitimate — it extends notability only to the leaders of recognized governments, while leaders of unrecognized governments get no instant free passes and have to actually be shown to pass WP:GNG. So an article would be perfectly fine if he could be shown to have considerably more reliable source coverage than this — but as written, this is based 4/5 on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the one footnote that does appear to be a valid source isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:NPOL does it mention international recognition or provisional governments? I don't see that anywhere in the policy. The policy says "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" and his position seems to be either a national office or a province-wide office (of a breakaway province). Either way it seems to me he'd meet WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simple logic demonstrates that if simply declaring oneself the head of an unrecognized micronation were in and of itself sufficient to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, then every human being on earth could get an instant Wikipedia inclusion freebie just by posting to TwitterX or Instagram that their apartment was now an independent micronation, and thus bypassing all of our notability standards. And besides, even national heads of state still have to pass WP:GNG anyway — the only concession they get is "GNG-building coverage will almost certainly exist, so don't rush the article into the garbage can just because of a temporary state of inadequacy caused by Wikipedians' laziness in finding it", not "this person is exempted from ever having to have any RS coverage at all". Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The micronation analogy is a strawman. There is fundamental difference between declaring a microstate and being part of an armed uprising's government in a rebelling province. The latter is far more notable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not without reliable sourcing to support the content, it ain't. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. --Yakudza (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found no WP:SIGCOV in English sources, likely to be in Rus/Ukr. An WP:ATD could be a redirect to Luhansk People's Republic#Government, where he is listed. I would imagine that as a rebel leader, he's more likely to be notable than not, but obviously this has to be proved by reliable sources; in this case, WP:Draftification could also be a decent option. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: because there have been an earlier version before, and he was confirmed to have born in Uzbekistan, as seen here, [18]. Ivan Milenin (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep or Draftify: I'd be comfortable keeping the article as meeting WP:NPOL since there is a high probability of additional sourcing existing in Russian or Ukrainian (per Curbon7). The Russian language article currently uses some sources we don't and that is probably worth noting (expansion is possible with some translating). Finally, if there is still concern that we don't have enough WP:RS we should probably draftify (per Curbon7) since this person will probably have enough sourcing for an article eventually. I do not find the microstate argument persuasive and think LPR and DPR politicians are probably fundamentally different from microstate founders. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TulsaPoliticsFan: I have checked Russian and Ukrainian sources, there are no enough sources for independent article. Panam2014 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirje Tamul[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, History, and Estonia. UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. The article also fails WP:NPROF. IncompA 21:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2023 (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!} 20:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sydonia[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Wow, how are you finding all of these band articles? I'm impressed. IncompA 18:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"tagged for notability since 2010", as they said in their many previous deletion statements. casualdejekyll 23:22, 10 August 2023 (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!} 18:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere3[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. IncompA 18:22, 10 August 2023 (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!} 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spanova[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. IncompA 18:20, 10 August 2023 (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 Coupling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeve coupling[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced dictdef, so perhaps a candidate for Wiktionary. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the picture into coupling and redirect, the rest of the material is already duplicated there. - Indefensible (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coupling#Sleeve,_box,_or_muff where it is described. This topic might be notable; I have not checked. But as it it is, it is a near duplicate of the target section and it is best to merge the helpful diagram and redirect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:08, 11 August 2023 (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. Although this institution may grant degrees, there is consensus for a lack of independent sources demonstrating its notability. ^Complex/_Rational 21:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Aviation University[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've been unable to locate decent, independent sources about this non-degree-granting university. —S Marshall T/C 17:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and Georgia (country). —S Marshall T/C 17:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the three sources are WP:IS. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nomination and UtherSRG's insight. Not much else to say here. IncompA 17:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the cited sources suggests notability. (I declined a G4 speedy deletion nomination because the present article is significantly different from the one discussed before and deleted, not because I thought the article was worth keeping.) JBW (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly does appear to grant degrees and to be a state-accredited university.[19] The nomination is therefore based on an inaccurate assumption. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the independent source you need to supply, is it.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's perfectly sufficient when the nomination is fundamentally flawed, which was my point. If you claim an institution is non-degree-granting when its website says it is degree-granting then you've got to be prepared to be called out over it as a clear breach of WP:BEFORE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I read the previous AFD the last time we deleted this, the consensus at that time was that it doesn't grant degrees, or at least that contention was not challenged. Now you say it does. I don't speak Georgian, so all I know is that Google Translate thinks that the university's own website claims that it grants degrees.
      To be fair to you, both could be true -- the university might have expanded its curriculum in the mean time. In which case my nomination should read: "I've been unable to locate decent, independent sources about this university which mainly grants pilots' licences and technical qualifications for air crew, but does have a proportion of students seeking academic degrees in aviation law and business administration." In which case, I'm wrong, mea culpa. I don the Hair Shirt of Having Missed That.
      But you're saying, "One error in your nomination statement means we have to keep the article!" and that's not so. We should not be keeping an article with no independent sources. And as a sysop, you should not be advocating keeping an article with no independent sources. That's inappropriate.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - accreditation is no longer considered an automatic pass on notability any more than existence is for secondary schools. Like it or not, it is what it is until someone puts forth the effort to change it. There are no secondary sources to show notability and it's my position that a school article lacking independent sources could be deleted g11 in most cases. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Neither accreditation nor the granting of any type of degree confer notability on their own. Per WP:NSCHOOL, educational institutions have to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG, which this institution apparently does not. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:47, 17 August 2023 (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!} 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Defence Against Fresh Fruit[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced, almost entirely a plot summary, and no critical reviews. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find one or two secondary sources that make reference to the skit, but they're passing mentions, not really WP:SIGCOV.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination and WeirdNAnnoyed's research for sources. IncompA 17:58, 10 August 2023 (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!} 17:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. They seem pretty inactive as well. No album since 2014? Yeah, take 'em out. IncompA 18:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since 2010? They've had plenty of time to fix this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wrote the original version of this article back in 2009, and it has not aged well. Plus, the band no longer exists. MadScientist (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2023 (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!} 17:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Schwartz[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Theatre, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about all I find [20], confirmation he's working. Not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rosscreekcentre (talk · contribs), the user who both created the file and uploaded the photo, likely had COI issues before being blocked. The photo should be considered for deletion as well. Mind matrix 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be appropriate after the article is deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about him, but this is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, which is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2023 (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!} 17:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Saitō (actress)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Man, you're really finding all of these shitty articles? Good job mate. IncompA 18:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only minor roles, no other indication of notability. Dekimasuよ! 20:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only played 2 bit roles, nothing substantial, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Mason (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2023 (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!} 17:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Sadran[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Football, and France. UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seriously... I found [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and many many more French sources. He is Cleary a significant figure in French football and has a comprehensive French wikipedia page. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG from sources above, just needs someone to expand the article with it really Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 13:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
snow keep I don't think nominator did any research! Govvy (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2023 (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 b/c no accurate deletion rationale was provided. As an added note, the improvement and notability tags were added 6 minutes after the creation of the article, then the article was nominated for AfD 5 minutes after that. This didn't allow sufficient time for the article to be improved or even finish the creation process. In addition, a quick search on Google Scholar shows the subject likely meets Wikipedia notability guidelines‎. SouthernNights (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Purbeck[edit]

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

Subjects do not meet criteria for the general notability guideline while not passing WP:NAUTHOR either. The entire article is about the two subjects' works, none of which have articles, and the article clearly states that little is known about the authors at all. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Of course I may be biased as I drafted the article and first posted it not five minutes ago. The Purbeck sisters are included in several well-established reference works on women's writing, as noted in the references, which indicates sufficient notability to my mind: They have entries in the following:

Blain, Virginia, et al., eds. The Feminist Companion to Literature in English. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1990. (Internet Archive)
Orlando: Women’s Writing in the British Isles from the Beginnings to the Present
The Women's Print History Project
"Elizabeth Purbeck": Corvey Women Writers on the Web Author's Page
"Jane Purbeck": Corvey Women Writers on the Web Author's Page

They are also referred to in at least one piece of scholarship on another author:

Butler, Cheryl. "Jane Austen, Netley Abbey, and Gothic Tourism." Persuasions Online. Jane Austen Society of North America (JASNA) 40.1 (Winter 2019). Accessed 2023-08-07.

— scribbling woman 16:57, 10 August 2023 (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!} 17:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Beach Bandshell[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Significant, independent coverage not found online, and current cited sources are all primary sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and Florida. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep Registered and listed on the NRHP. Full heritage details can be found in the links provided. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching this online brought up lots of directory listings of concerts that were being held there, but also lots of discussion about its historical listing. A specific newspaper search also brought up lots of directory concerts of listings and until I wasn't able to view results anymore. The coverage I found doesn't count, but I had to sort through enough hits of recent articles, including lists of best concert venues in Miami, to suggest there's plenty of information out there we can use to create a good article on this. An older newspaper search might help. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 10 August 2023 (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!} 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McDowell (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Advert for a non notable entrepreneur 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Thailand. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears vanity spam, nothing for notability found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly promotional and not notable enough for Wikipedia. Graham87 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I checked every source in the present version that didn't have Thai in its title, and all of them are either database entries (or equivalently short content), by contributors, non-independent, or PR pieces. A news search gives 3 results, 1 of which is already in the article and is from a contributor. Checking other sources, such as the WP:TWL, is a non-sequitar due to the commonness of his name. Using the entrepreneur discriminator doesn't help. Non-notable. —Sirdog (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2023 (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!} 17:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cork Junior A Hurling Championship[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Unreferenced. Too Soon. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ireland. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Would ideally be restored to draft. Or deleted. Author/mover was premature in moving this from draft to main article space. Given that the event hasn't yet occurred, there is zero indication of sufficient coverage to meet WP:NSEASONS, WP:NSPORTSEVENT or WP:SIGCOV. Per nom, WP:TOOSOON also applies. Nothing appears to have changed since was draftified in April. Author/mover has been reminded of applicable guidelines (by multiple editors) more than a few times previously. Guliolopez (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced, and so fails verifiability. The move back to article space after draftification without providing the needed references was disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator‎. (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young-min Kim[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Improperly sourced. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Distinguished professor with national awards passes at least two of the WP:PROF criteria (only one needs to be met to keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator is in good faith mistaken in describing this as a disputed draftification. It was not moved from article space to draft space. It was first moved by its author from user space to project space, which was another good faith error. User:Liz moved it to draft space because it didn't belong in project space. Its author then moved it to article space. There was no dispute, only a roundabout movement. User:Timtrent also doesn't say what is wrong with the sourcing. The article has been reference-bombed, but that is not a reason for deletion or draftification. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article should be tagged as making statements in the voice of Wikipedia that should be attributed to other scholars. That is not a reason for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR: It has been brought to my attention that I misinterpreted the revision history, form which I apologise. All !votes are to keep and withdrawing is thus valid 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 13 August 2023 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Saunders (skeptic)[edit]

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

I have started to do some copyedits or trimming of promotional material on this page, but looking further I'm struggling to find independent, third-party references on this individual. Most of the sceptical publications used in this article seem to have links to him in some way and are not independent, and the others seem to mention in passing. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable media personality. Appears in the ABC piece, as an "expert" in xyz field. Nothing beyond that for notability here in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's shored up some. I added a dozen solid mentions from traditional media, going through ProQuest, added those to the article with useful bits of text. Turns out the Power Balance article talks about him (he contributed to the company going bankrupt), so I migrated that content too. I think it's a keeper now. But yes, it definitely needed trimming and better sources. Robincantin (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robincantin: Thank you for editing the article, it's definitely an improvement! If you can find any reliable sources regarding content I have deleted from the article, I would not object to that being re-added to the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG easily with all references already on the page. Plenty can be added from Scholar and Books. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2023 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air Partner[edit]

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

Article about a company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on the quality and volume of their sourcing -- but this is referenced almost entirely to the company's own self-published content about itself, on its own website and/or in press releases, and shows virtually no evidence of reliable source coverage at all: the only citation that goes to a real media outlet is tangential verification that a terminal at Gatwick originally opened in 1936, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of this specific airline as it didn't exist until 1961.
Note, for the record, that this article was raised as a WP:WAX argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production Air Charter -- but, of course, the fact that this article is badly sourced doesn't mean that other article has to be kept, it means this article needs to be deleted. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I don't yet have a firm opinion on what to do with this article and I have not yet searched for refs but for now I have 2 observations:

This company was listed on the London Stock Exchange. Experience shows that most companies end up with enough coverage to be found notable.
Air Partner was acquired by Wheels Up; it may make sense to merge this article into the Wheels Up article

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability: Air Partner could meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, as it is a publicly-traded company however with poor significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As was mentioned above, it was listed on the London Stock Exchange, which typically indicates a level of prominence. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some coverage about the company in the British newspapers found on Newspapers.com (see here) and probably more so in the British Newspaper Archive. There is also some coverage found online, such as this Forbes article from 2022. As of now, I would be leaning to weak keep. Alvaldi (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alvaldi, there seems to be enough coverage in old newspaper articles to support notability. However, if not, then merge into Wheels Up per A. B. at the very least. - Indefensible (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge into Wheels Up as per ATD. Usually if a company is quoted on one of the main stock exchanges, there will be analyst reports available but in this case I'm unable to locate any analyst reports that provide any significant or in-depth information about the company - which is unusual but not unlikely. There are some older archived newspaper articles but most either comment on earnings or contain insufficient in-depth information or fail ORGIND. There were a couple which were borderline (where the journalist provided some independent opinion) and for that reason plus the assumption that there may be analyst reports out there in print, I'm leaning towards a weak keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Labbée[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and lacks WP:SIGCOV – local government elected members are not automatically notable. As per WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, not just mentions in passing. Current sourcing is a city website and a BEFORE check only found local mentioned. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City council in midsized cities is not a level of government that confers "inherent" notability under WP:NPOL — the notability test for a city councillor is not "she exists", but "her work on the city council has been analyzed to such an extent that she would qualify as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for city councillors" (and/or "serves on the city council of an internationally prominent global city like Toronto, Montreal or NYC", but Sudbury isn't in that tier). That hasn't been shown here at all, and the article is based solely on her "staff" profile on the self-published website of the city council rather than any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about her. I will grant that her predecessor, Mike Jakubo, does have an article, but he doesn't have it for having been a city councillor, he has it for having been a curler who competed in WP:NSPORT-conferring curling competitions like The Brier, so the fact that he has an article does not mean she automatically gets one too. (And no, "first woman elected in her own ward" is not a "more special than the norm" claim either — especially in a ward that's only existed in its current form since 2006, and has portions that were represented by other women under prior ward boundaries.) Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very much non-notable politician from my hometown. Sudbury is the largest city in the area, but not terribly large Canada-wise. Hyper local coverage [27] and this [28]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat - local politicians must generally be notable beyond their area to be wiki-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 10 August 2023 (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!} 03:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Gross[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hits on several people with this name, nothing for this person. Does not appear to have won any awards, only worked on B-movies. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criterion#3 for creative professionals; her contributions to notable films are verifiable, here or here, for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs some modicum of significant coverage to establish that she "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." She has credits as an editor, but I don't think we can say that's a "major role" in "co-creation" when there's no depth of sourcing. These are feature films, but don't have the significance that anyone who worked on them is notable per criterion 3 to the detriment of WP:BASIC/GNG, as this is "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources". Reywas92^Talk 00:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92; well put. Criterion 3 for WP:NCREATIVE requires verifiability that they played a major role in the creation; having edited the film is not at all a pass without sourcing to indicate the editing significantly contributed to the final product's makeup. Said sourcing doesn't exist, nor any sourcing discussing Jamie specifically. —Sirdog (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry but the guideline says this: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" Sources show she was editor for various film/TV works that received such coverage. In-depth/specific sources on her are therefore NOT needed; that is precisely why this criterion exists. And if editing is not a major part of a film, well, then, what is?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing is an important part of filmmaking, but I would not call the editor a film's co-creator, same for the cinematographer or even producers; that's more the director or some writers. This criterion does not exist to say it's okay to have articles with zero substantive coverage. If this was really such a "major" role, I would expect discussion of that role, not just credits listings without context. Furthermore, I wouldn't call any of these films "significant" or particularly well-known. Reywas92^Talk 23:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm once again beaten by Reywas92, who has stated what I intended to. For clarity on the particulars of policy that I believe we are leaning on, Wikipedia:Notability states "... topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found" and Wikipedia:Notability (people) states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Emphasis for both added by me. —Sirdog (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think since the film reviews do not mention praise/criticize the editing, the editor is not notable. [29], [30], [31] and [32]. Furthermore, while these films could have been edited by the same person, they could have been edited by two+ different people with the same name and such research is original research. DareshMohan (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator‎. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Medlin[edit]

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

I was unable to find enough reliable sources online to keep this article, especially since databases do not count towards notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and United States of America. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are a couple of sources [33][34] Alvaldi (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bleacher Report does not seem to be a reliable source, and one good source is not enough to establish notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) They seem to have a staff and they're cited on over 7,000 articles; I would say its reliable unless a discussion decides otherwise. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)/[reply]
Keep. I expected to find more and agree its a somewhat close call, but considering this is someone who played in the National Football League in very recent (2011)/modern times (and we've never deleted one of those minus one of the '87 replacements) we should keep based on the following sources: "Garner native making most of his chance" from The News & Observer (which is an in-depth feature story); "Fayetteville State's Medlin continues NFL dream with Dolphins" from WRAL-TV; "Miami Dolphins Sign Running Back Richard Medlin to Practice Squad" from Bleacher Report (while about a transaction, it is much more in-depth than most and so counts as SIGCOV as well); and "Fayetteville State's Medlin leads nation in kickoff returns" from The Fayetteville Observer (via ProQuest, 535 words on Medlin). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BeanieFan11 shows just enough coverage to meet GNG, although I am not including Bleacher Report since I am not sure it counts as RS. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beaniefan11's sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have greatly improved the article, see here. @QuicoleJR: Would you be willing to withdraw this nomination? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would be. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2023 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Lindiwe Mabaso[edit]

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

This is a BLP that is a résumé with no claims of notability. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the in-depth needed coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence of notability. Jlalbion (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – existing citations do not contribute to notability.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2023 (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 have low-weighted a lot of weak Keep !votes, particularly those not based on relevant notability guidelines, but there is still consensus here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leetcode[edit]

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

By IP: I suggest this article be nominated for AfD since it does not show why this website is notable. The only reliable source here is the Business Insider article, which is not enough. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC) NotAGenious (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Websites. NotAGenious (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting @93.72.49.123: to join the discussion. NotAGenious (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Practical note: this is actually a second nomination, it was previously deleted under the name "LeetCode" in 2016. If this article is kept this time, the article should be moved to LeetCode, which currently exists as a redirect but was previously deleted. Now, to notability: Sourcing looks worse than I assumed it would. Part of the issue here is that LeetCode is ubiquitous in tech blogs and online discussions, so there are many passing mentions: 500+ hits on Google Scholar, dozens on Google Books, etc. that make finding significant coverage challenging. There has been comparatively little coverage in the mainstream or business press (e.g. see the paragraph description of the product in the New York Times). There are articles like this one from Yicai Global that seems to me to meet WP:NPRODUCT, which is published by a subsidiary of Shanghai Media Group which would be unreliable for politics but may be reliable for business news (inferring from WP:RSP). Suriname0 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a well-known site which should have enough support from the current references and others available online such as https://www.dice.com/career-advice/coding-and-whiteboard-job-interviews-how-to-prepare. - Indefensible (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Dice.com is a commercial website. I do not see any editorial guidelines and there is no indication of editorial oversight. While it is possible to use it for citing content, it would not be considered reliable to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure a single paragraph is enough to establish notability. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That was just an example. Please do a search on Google Scholar for LeetCode: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=leetcode. I find it difficult to believe the subject would not meet on notability. - Indefensible (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finding it difficult to believe is not an argument for AfD. We present our opinions based on guidelines and policies. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, have you actually reviewed all 500+ results on Google Scholar? - Indefensible (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I have not. Am I required to? You presented an argument that Google Scholar contains the in-depth coverage required by WP:ORGCRIT (a guideline you called "imperfect"). It would be on you to present which specific Google Scholar articles meet that guideline. Your argument would be similar to me telling someone "check Google." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just asked because you said that you ran a search and did not find enough acceptable sources, but you did not review all of the Google Scholar results. I just wanted to know and clarify. - Indefensible (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Computing. Suriname0 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References on the page and those I found in a search did not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The company fails WP:NCORP; I was unable to find any in-depth coverage of the company at all. Is the product/site notable? I was only able to find some non-reliable blog reviews (e.g. 1, 2), but I'm also not aware of any site with editorial oversight that writes traditional "reviews" for sites/products like this. Instead, I notice a number of informal discussions of the product "where author describes personal opinions and experiences" in books from publishers like Wiley and Springer Nature (Apress). The two books cited plus the coverage in the New York Times and Business Insider together comprise significant coverage of the product and its use to meet WP:NCORP. None of the individual sources comprises more than a few paragraphs (and in the case of the academic sources usually 1-2 sentences); I would love to see someone uncover a source that discusses LeetCode in more depth relative to its many competitors. Suriname0 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it fails NCORP but we should keep it anyway is what I believe you are saying. I am not sure what guideline would allow that other than WP:IAR. Also, none of what you described adds up to significant coverage so I must be misunderstanding your assessment of the notability requirements. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the lack of clarity: the company fails NCORP, but the product passes NCORP. The individual book sources, for example, contribute WP:SIGCOV product reviews. Suriname0 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leetcode is a popular site and should meet the WP:GNG at least based on user counts and general popularity. The article reads a bit like it is about the company behind the service, so it might benefit a bit from a bit of cleanup. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a high user count is enough. WP:BIG NotAGenious (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep LeetCode stands as a widely recognized and exceptional company, with a reputation that echoes through the software engineering communities of the US, India, and China. This website has left an indelible mark, aiding countless engineers globally in realizing their career aspirations and setting a benchmark within the industry. Despite their limited engagement in self-promotion, their prominence remains undeniable. A brief exploration would affirm this fact. Considering their extensive user base and substantial industry influence, they undoubtedly fulfill the criteria with distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.47.209.29 (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. But is that what the reliable sources say? NotAGenious (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that this doesn't meet Wikipedia's strict standard for notability, but let's be honest, since that standard was written, most sources that would have covered Leetcode have gone out of business. Category:Defunct computer magazines published in the United States. Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Your statement of "I understand that this doesn't meet Wikipedia's strict standard for notability" is an agreement that it should be deleted. I am unsure of why it should be kept then unless this is a WP:LIKE vote. Your argument is saying you disagree with community consensus on notability guidelines, not that this page doesn't meet them. Let me know if I misunderstood what you are saying. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cui, Cong; Dossetov, Ualkikhan; Wei, Songjie (2015). "Computational Thinking Guided Programming Training for Oversea Students with Diverse Computer Literacy Skills". Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education. 4: 59–60. doi:10.14355/jitae.2015.04.008. ISSN 2227-6459. Archived from the original on 2018-06-03. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  The article notes: "LeetCode is a website for preparing and practicing programming interviews. It has 200 questions spanning many aspects in computer programming. All are rated based on difficulties. Users can type in source code and submit for testing online. LeetCode makes a good venue for our students to learn programming, testing and debugging, with realistic industry‐interview used programming problems. The browser‐based platform is easily accessible. Some of our students even worked on problems on smartphones in their spare time. ... A good grade on LeetCode challenge implies a student’s continuous, diligent and fruitful working on LeedCode problem solving, which requires not only spending time online, but thinking in computation, and efficient coding and debugging capability."
  
  This appears to be an article published to a predatory journal. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Good catch, the publisher (Science and Engineering Publishing Company) is included on the website of Beall's List. I've stricken this source from the list. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sonmez, John; Butow, Eric (2020). Programming Interviews For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 108–109, 219–220. ISBN 978-1-119-56502-4. Retrieved 2023-08-15 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The LeetCode website (https://leetcode.com) is one of the best places on the web to find and practice programming problems. All you have to do to view the list of questions is click the View Questions link on the home page to open the Questions page shown in Figure 18-1. What’s more, you’ll find problems to practice that are asked of interviewees at various large companies, including Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Amazon, and many others. Just click one of the companies listed in the Companies section on the right side of the Questions page. If you want to get the most out of the LeetCode site, sign up for a membership. LeetCode gives you the option of signing up for a monthly plan if you only want to use it while you’re looking for a job, or for a yearly plan if you want to use LeetCode as a resource for one calendar year. As of this writing, the monthly subscription costs $35 per month and the yearly subscription costs $159 per year."
  The book further notes in a later chapter: "Leetcode is also a popular site for programmers who want to get up to speed. When you open the LeetCode website at https://leetcode.com, you have to sign up for an account by clicking on the Create Account button shown in Figure 8-2. After you create an account, you can sign in by clicking the Sign In link in the upper-right corner of the screen. Like Codility, LeetCode has plenty of programming topics you can learn about, and you can take tests over and over again until you get a perfect score. You can also participate in contests against other LeetCode members. LeetCode also has several additional features: ..."
3. Wu, Jiang 吴江 (2021). 高效制胜：程序员面试典型题解 [Winning with Efficiency: Solutions to Typical Programmer Interview Questions] (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing Book Co. [zh]. ISBN 978-7-115-55198-6. Retrieved 2023-08-15 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "LeetCode是推荐最多的算法题练习网站,本书的算法题也都精选自 LeetCode。我认为LeetCode有以下几个优点。 1.测试覆盖率高。在提交代码以后,LeetCode会跑很多测试来验证代码的正确性,而且很多题目的测试对于极端边界情况、复杂度和性能的要求都有全面的考虑。为了保证代码的正确性,做题目的时候要养成审题的习惯,仔细分析题目的条件范围,不要因为极端案例导致程序失败。 2.支持的语言比较多和新。LeetCode会定期更新支持的语言的版本, 保证能够利用到最新的语言特性。 3.讨论内容丰富。LeetCode现在有中文和英文两个版本,每个版本下的评论都很丰富,通过阅读他人的评论可以加深我们对题目的理解,获得新的思路。当然,LeetCode也有一些缺点,比如题目数量太多、不够精练,而与字符串相关的练习题偏少等。"
  From Google Translate: "LeetCode is the most recommended algorithm problem practice website, and the algorithm problems in this book are also selected from LeetCode. I think LeetCode has the following advantages. 1. High test coverage. After submitting the code , LeetCode will run a lot of tests to verify the correctness of the code, and the tests of many questions have comprehensive considerations for extreme boundary conditions, complexity and performance requirements. In order to ensure the correctness of the code, you must develop a practice of reviewing the questions when doing the questions 2. There are many and new languages supported. LeetCode will regularly update the versions of supported languages to ensure that the latest language features can be used. 3. Discussion The content is rich. LeetCode now has two versions, Chinese and English, and the comments under each version are very rich. By reading other people’s comments, we can deepen our understanding of the topic and gain new ideas. Of course, LeetCode also has some shortcomings, such as the topic There are too many, not concise enough, and there are too few exercises related to strings, etc."
  The book notes: "LeetCode (力扣) 起源于美国硅谷,是最早的在线评测(Online Judge, OJ)平台之一。"
  From Google Translate: "LeetCode (力扣) originated in Silicon Valley, USA, and is one of the earliest Online Judge (OJ) platforms."
4. Liao, Shumin (2021-12-01). Litting, Tom (ed.). "IT Job Interview Prepper LeetCode Pockets USD10 Million From Lightspeed China". Yicai Global [zh]. Shanghai Media Group. Archived from the original on 2023-08-15. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  The article notes: "LeetCode, a US startup that helps prepare software engineers for job interviews, has secured funding of nearly USD10 million from Lightspeed China Partners. ... Founded in Silicon Valley in 2011, LeetCode’s questions are widely used in interviews by major internet and tech companies. Demand for its services in China surged in 2018, so it set up a Chinese site to operate independently in the local market. ... LeetCode has over 100 million annual code submissions, and roughly half of Chinese programmers are believed to be using the platform, with many colleges and universities using LeetCode questions for auxiliary teaching."
5. Nguyen, Nhan; Nadi, Sarah (2022-10-17). "An Empirical Evaluation of GitHub Copilot's Code Suggestions". MSR '22: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1–5. doi:10.1145/3524842.3528470.
  The article notes on page 1: "To evaluate the correctness of Copilot’s suggestions, we use LeetCode, a question pool website, which provides us with the context needed to create Copilot queries (function name, parameters, input, and output of the function) as well as test cases that we can use to evaluate correctness of the suggestions. LeetCode questions come with test cases in various programming languages, allowing us to assess the correctness of Copilot’s suggestions in 4 different languages (Python, Java, JavaScript, and C)."
  The article notes on page 2: "LeetCode. LeetCode is a popular Question Pool website (QP). Such websites provide various coding questions on different topics (array, algorithm, sorting, etc) along with corresponding tests to check correctness. ... LeetCode also provides a publicly available API to fetch submission details. Figure 2a shows an example LeetCode question, named Longest Increasing Path in a Matrix. The question contains information like the input (m x n integers matrix), the expected output (the length of the longest increasing path in a matrix), and any assumptions (no wrap-around). Each question also comes with a coding environment to submit solutions, shown in Figure 2b. This coding environment contains the function name (longestIncreasingPath) and parameters (self, matrix) with clear details into the type of each parameter."
  The book notes on page 2: "LeetCode’s coding environment also contains a set of test cases in multiple programming languages. Figure 2b shows the Python coding environment for testing a submission against LeetCode’s predefined set of test cases. ... LeetCode’s tests also ensure that submitted code snippets “meet various time and space restrictions and pass corner cases” for the given problem. Users are also able to see a history of their submission status for the current coding problem and any past code solutions submitted for the same question, as shown in Figure 2c. The possible statuses are: ..."
  The book notes on page 4: "LeetCode stops execution at the first failed test case."
6. Kolak, Sophia (2020-11-15). "Detecting Performance Patterns with Deep Learning". SPLASH Companion 2020: Companion Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Systems, Programming, Languages, and Applications: Software for Humanity. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3426430.3428132.
  The article notes: "Leetcode is an online platform for practicing algorithmic coding challenges designed to prepare software engineers for technical interviews. After a correct solution is submitted, leetcode provides a distribution of accepted solutions according to run-time, along with representative samples from other users along this distribution. We scraped all such available samples across 32 array problems, for a total of 1,836 code snippets. This allowed us to study real implementations of the same problem at variable run-times, and to isolate syntax as the cause of either high or low performance."
7. Siddiqui, Saleem (2022). Learning Test-Driven Development: A Polyglot Guide to Writing Uncluttered Code. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. pp. 220–221. ISBN 978-1-098-10647-8. Retrieved 2023-08-15 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "LeetCode encourages social interaction with other developers with coding contests, challenges, and discussions. The “Playground” feature allows you to write code in several languages, including Go, JavaScript, and Python. However, there are some limitations. With Go, it is not trivial to import packages outside the standard library or to run tests via go test. With Python, it’s not obvious how to run tests using the unittest package. The free version restricts the number of Playgrounds (currently 10); the paid subscription removes this restriction and offers a host of other features, such as debugging and autocompletion. Figure A-4 shows a LeetCode window with JavaScript code from Chapter 1. The test in the code has been deliberately broken test to illustrate how test failures appear in LeetCode."
8. Harper, Jocelyn (2023). A Software Engineer’s Guide to Seniority: A Guide to Technical Leadership. Wilmington, North Carolina: Apress. p. 20. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-8783-5. ISBN 978-1-4842-8782-8.
  The book notes: "LeetCode is a platform that specializes in algorithm questions ranked from “Easy” to “Hard” based on the complexity of the subject and solution. They also have a forum where people share what interview questions they encountered in phone screens and on-site interviews to share with the larger public and to help software engineers prepare. I have been fortunate that the only time that I encountered a LeetCode problem during a screening process was for Amazon. As tedious as studying for LeetCode problems is, I have compiled steps that made solving them easier and faster as I was grinding algorithms."
9. Poundstone, William (2021). How Do You Fight a Horse-Sized Duck?: Secrets to Succeeding at Interview Mind Games and Getting the Job You Want. New York: Little, Brown Spark. ISBN 978-0-316-49457-1. Retrieved 2023-08-15 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The equivalent for software engineers is the “LeetCode interview." LeetCode is a popular coding and interview-prep website that offers engineers hundreds of typical technical questions and interview work assignments. The right side of the Leetcode window is a code editor allowing the user to type in code in a selected language. The code can be executed (to see how well it works) or critiqued by other users. LeetCode offers a path for anyone, from 10-year-old prodigies to mid-career switchers, to learn coding. It allows users to conduct mock job interviews with questions, rated by difficulty, that have been asked at specific companies. Other sites, such as HackerRank, InterviewBit, and Topcoder, offer similar features."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LeetCode (Chinese: 力扣) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep, reliable sources with significant coverage found: [35][36][37] plus book sources brought up above should suggest that this website is notable. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:48, 15 August 2023 (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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sannarpsgymnasiet[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG to me. There is coverage in the local newspaper (Hallandsposten) but to my eye this falls under WP:ROUTINE. However I'm not entirely certain so didn't just want to PROD it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, BabbaQ and Necrothesp are right, and I think I was a bit too BOLD . --AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search turns up sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs an upgrade. But the article subject meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Per compelling source analysis. We can revisit if better sources are found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Gerrand[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Also possible WP:AUTOB. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend KEEP: Substantial changes and additions have now been made to this page which add many non-writing biographical details for the subject. I believe that these improvements would indicate that the subject is "notable", possibly not to the requirements for an author but certainly for the other management career work. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Closure of Discussion: this discussion has now been running for two weeks, has been relisted after the first week and still I am the only editor who has responded to the call. I can only assume that this implies a lack of dissent and I therefore request that this discussion be brought to an end. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not made by lack of participation, and I don't think we can take low participation to mean that nobody objects, particularly given how limited editor resources at AfD already are. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 18:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to potential closer/relister): I'm currently assessing this. May take a minute or two. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a source assessment table below for the sources currently in the article - I did not find any better ones. Fails WP:BASIC, and no evidence that WP:NAUTHOR is met either. Improving an article does not make the subject more notable, as has been suggested in this discussion. I'm also not sure why "other management career work" would make this individual notable. If I've missed something, please let me know. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that the "X" here in the table below indicates a negative? I'm not sure how you can rate Austlit as neither independent (it is a long running Australian bibliographic project running out of the University of Queensland) nor reliable, as this is the premier Australian literary resource in the country. I'd like some explanation of that if possible. Similarly with the ISBNs and the Florey Institute annual report which are rated as non-independent. The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, which has its own wiki page, is one of the premier health research facilities in the country. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To establish notability, sources need to be independent of the subject. Books the subject has written don‘t fulfill that requirement, and neither do companies or institutes where Gerrand is a member of the board. Note that even if AustLit is reliable and independent, it provides no significant coverage of Gerrand. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 06:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I grant you that Austlit does not provide significant coverage as it's a bibliographic index, a listing. The trouble is you rate it as "not independent" and "not reliable" which is clearly incorrect. That brings into question your other ratings which will influence anyone reading your Assessment Table.

Similarly for the listing of books. They are referenced to indicate that they are not just made up but do, in fact, exist. On other pages I've had other editors indicate that such listings must be referenced. But again they are not meant to.

I have linked to the Florey Institute's annual report as it indicates that Gerrand held the position of director. It's made as a statement of fact in that document. It's also made as a statement of fact in other referenced documents from other organisations. I just thought it was better to reference a directorial position directly from the relevant organisation rather than from one of the others. Is it preferable for me to reference his Florey Institute work from the Healthy Parks Healthy People Global reference, and vice versa? That seems very confusing to me.

My main concern is that your Assessment Table contains so many queries about, and negative assessments of, independent and reliable organisations that a casual glance from another editor would immediately conclude that there was no possible argument against deletion. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sfbookcase.com/author.asp?author=Rob+Gerrand	?		✘ No
https://nwmphn.org.au/news/north-western-melbourne-primary-health-network-board-update/			✘ No
https://florey.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The_Florey_-_Annual_Report_2013.pdf		?	✘ No
https://www.sane.org/about-sane/board-members-and-patrons		?	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20081211113621/http://www.philsp.com/homeville/ISFAC/t165.htm#A3428	?		✘ No
ISBN 9781863950008.		?	✘ No
ISBN 9780143001355.		?	✘ No
ISBN 9780670041381		?	✘ No
ISBN 9781863953016		?	✘ No
AustLit (all of them)	?	?	✘ 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}}.

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!} 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federalism in Indonesia[edit]

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

There is already an article on the United States of Indonesia, the formal federal state that was dissolved in 1950. This article adds almost no information not included in that article. It is not being proposed by any parties. The article appears to be machine translated from the Indonesian, hence the lack of tenses. Davidelit (Talk) 12:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the existence already of a collection of articles about the federal state suggests the creation of this article is a problem, Federal_Consultative_Assembly Federal Constitution of 1949 for example, and the template for United States of Indonesia show the component articles and the range of events leading to the rejection of the notion of federalism, It is hard to understand why this article was created... JarrahTree 14:18, 12 August 2023 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ayurveda Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All of the sources are press releases and routine coverages, which are not considered independent coverage. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are mostly press releases and fluffy interviews, nothing reallly significant. Hard to find other sources because of the company's generic name. I would change my mind if someone could find something else. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the only reference remotely close to meeting WP:ORGCRIT. There are also some content farm pieces I removed from the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage except for one article in The New Indian Express.Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2023 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer Group[edit]

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

Routine coverage, not sufficient to establish notability. Doesn't pass WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even an attempt to indicate anything that the company is notable for, only that it exists and operates. Straight up business directory listing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fairly ROTM small water/drinks bottling company that, apart from its start as a social enterprise (prior to 2022 acquisition), is otherwise a fairly standard local/regional business. With less than 50 employees, the only coverage I can find is the usual "press release republished in local/regional papers" type stuff we might expect for any similar business. I've added some of this coverage to the article (Where it barely provides enough to cover the text/content - and does very little to establish/support notability). The COI/SPA/PAID/PROMO overtones, clear in the article's initial creation, are also hard to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP as references do not meet the requirement of WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2023 (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. Meeting GEOLAND does require evidence that a populated place exists and is legally recognized. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mbalano[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. It is not a "town"; at most it is a few houses. The author's obsession with climate does not help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Nigeria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a WP:POPULATED town that seems to have a postal code [38][39] —siro χ o 10:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siroxo are those links reliable sources, and do they constitute legal recognition? The second one seems to be a list of unofficial neighbourhoods that fall into a certain postal code. Per WP:POPULATED, "populated places without legal recognition" should have "non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - listed at List of villages in Abia State in the Imenyi district within the Isuikwuato local government area.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

at this point, delete without prejudice to recreation if actual reliable sources are provided. Frankly, a quick sampling of other Nigerian towns/villages doesn't show any that don't have sourcing problems, but this is assembled entirely out of clickbait. Looking at GMaps is not encouraging: there is a group of buildings here, but it is not isolated enough from its surroundings to convince me that it is a distinct settlement. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The thresholds for populated places are low, but it needs to be verifiably shown that this place 1. exists and 2. has some legal recognition, and neither of those has been done here; accordingly, this fails WP:GEOLAND. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:31, 17 August 2023 (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 Boki, Nigeria. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abo Ebam[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE shows that this hospital/public health center has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. It is merely the health clinic of a very tiny village in rural Nigeria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Africa, and Nigeria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boki, Nigeria as WP:ATD-R. This appears to be a town in that region (eg, the AP reported from there [40] and a journal article noted it [41]), but the current article does not reflect that. —siro χ o 10:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems the best choice. Appears too small to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (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!} 17:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sion Wiggin[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. A low career high ranking of 210. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wales, and New Zealand. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and no in-depth significant coverage found. Dank Jae 10:31, 17 August 2023 (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 no indication any further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Vasilyevich Popov[edit]

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

Non-notable university teacher. In politics, an assistant to a regional deputy and does not pass WP:NPOLITICIAN. On the web, does not pass WP:NYOUTUBE with such a small audience. It's true he's the author of a bunch of works, but that doesn't provide notability itself. Suitskvarts (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets WP:BASIC:
1. sigcov of studies in the US [42]
2. sigcov of a speech given by subject: [43],
3. part interview, part independent sigcov [44]
4. some sigcov verifying various information in the notes for this book published by Harvard University Press [45]

Should be enough, but almost certainly more in non-English-language sources as well. —siro χ o 20:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo:Are you sure that's our guy? I just don't see anywhere that he is connected with the "Siberian branch of the Soviet Union's Academy of Sciences". I mean, he's from St. Petersburg. Also, I think if he had traveled to the US in the 80's as part of Soviet delegation, it would have been mentioned on the Russian page. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my search I found at least 3 other contemporary people with reasonable coverage with the same first and last name (and English-language sources often do not include the patronymic), so it's possible a couple of these sources describe yet another, but there's a few similarities to the subject of the article. The gaps in degrees from this article lines up with being "distracted" by these related political pursuits at various times. The fact that he studied philosophy and economics seems to line up with the sources I listed. But I am not positive —siro χ o 19:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Russian article, ru:Попов, Михаил Васильевич (учёный) is much longer and has more citations. On the other hand, I'm not sure they establish notability.

Here's a copy of his CV at St. Petersburg University.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 10 August 2023 (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. If an editor want to work on this article in Draft space, let me or WP:REFUND know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Page[edit]

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

BEFORE search found no significant coverage, only passing mentions of being somebody's opponent. Fails WP:GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a professional he won 21 of 68 fights. He was 1-1 as an amateur losing in the round of 32 at the PAL championships (not sure why the article says he was "featured"). Clearly fails to meet WP:NBOX and nothing I found makes me believe that WP:GNG is met. Fight results and databases do not show WP notability and he doesn't get WP notability for his loss to Fury. Papaursa (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NBOX. You're not notable solely based on your opponents. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HES A STILL A PROFESSIONAL BOXER, WE STILL GIVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES TO UNKNOWN BOXERS, YET THEY ARE STILL UP, WHY IS THIS PAGE BEING DELETED! THERE IS NO REASON, HE WAS A RESPECTED PROFESSIONAL BOXER. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF THIS. GET A LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.184.38 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"capslock"

Please be careful the way how you act. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@174.100.184.38 sources? also see WP:SHOUTING InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider deletion of this page. the proper information has been added, Zack Page is professional fighter, who has fought against some of boxings toughest opponents. he is a well known respected fighter in the community, and yes. His record does not prove any significance, however the outcome of his fights do. not many fighters can go toe to toe all 6 or 8 or 10 rounds with some of the best heavyweights in the world. so I ask that you please review, reconsider and do not delete this page. it took me a few days to gather up all the information regarding Zack Page so that I could organize this page. There are less significant fighters, that are linked on his fighting record, who all have pages, and has fought nobody significant either. for that I see this is a little bias and unfair. So all I ask is that you reconsider your choice and avoid the deletion of this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porfiriotorres991 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage I could find is limited to routine match recaps/previews, not SIGCOV. Doesn't pass GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (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) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring jokes in Private Eye[edit]

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

Subject is WP:MADEUP, no sources actually talk about the subject of “reoccurring in jokes”, as a discrete thing, in detail, and I have no idea what alternative terminology could possibly describe this. Dronebogus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Lists, and United Kingdom. Dronebogus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept of the recurring jokes in the magazine meets WP:GNG, a list of the jokes meets WP:NLIST. See:
1. The Guardian [46]
2. WSJ [47]
3. The National[48]
4. The Age [49]
5. Even Reuters has a bit about them [50].

Article needs some love, but AFD is not cleanup. —siro χ o 08:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is clearly relevant, but do the others really talk about running gags in the paper vs. just the paper? Plus the Age link is broken. Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. WSJ: "a baffling shorthand of catchphrases and in-jokes". The National: "The jokes were always there, such as nicknaming HM the Queen as Brenda, while the purported thoughts of Prince Charles – Brian – are a regular feature. Their name calling has been a regular petty feature – Andrew Neil as Brillo, Piers Morgan as Piers Moron and Richard Branson as Beardie spring to mind." The Age: "You have to be in on the in-jokes". Reuters: "Newcomers to the magazine may be baffled by its in-jokes ..." GrindtXX (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the above reasons. The Eye is well known for its in-jokes, some of which have progressed into general circulation (e.g. Tired and emotional, which now appears in the OED), others of which are impenetrable to anyone other than regular readers, and which merit encyclopedic unravelling. GrindtXX (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not willing to entertain a nomination which came about to spite someone in an unrelated argument. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not! You’re assuming bad faith and making an ad hominem attack. I sincerely hope the closer ignores you irregardless of outcome. Dronebogus (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Rhododendrites wrote seems perfectly reasonable to me. Whether you did it to spite someone is arguable, but it certainly seems so if one goes to the link and reads what you said in an unrelated discussion. Anyway, keep. Athel cb (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ive struck the linked comm since people seem to be misinterpreting it in a poor light. Dronebogus (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to assume. You were explicit about it. Striking it doesn't undo your bad faith edits -- it just tries to pretend otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article subject is not "made up", it was originally split from the parent article due to the latter's length. The terminology used in Private Eye, per Siroxo's sources, is part of what makes the magasine an institution, and much of it has entered common parlance. Some of the more trivial examples could surely go, but they are not an argument to delete the whole article. Jdcooper (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per Rhododendrites. This is very likely to have been opened in bad faith, and I would support sanctions against Dronebogus for pulling this stunt. XfD is not a weapon and should not be used as such. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep makes sense. Even if this was nommed in good faith it has a serious component of looking as if it wasn't. Best to let it slide for six months or so. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see why this was nominated. Almost all conceivable articles named "Recurring jokes in X" would be deletable. This is a rare, genuine exception but you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise given how much of the article is unreferenced and seems like enthusiastic fan writing. Extensive cleanup is required. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge. The article doesn't contain sources indicating significant coverage in reliable sources exists for recurring jokes in Private Eye as a group; this discussion has turned up precisely one such source and I haven't been able to find any more myself. The bulk of the sources are discussions of the magazine as a whole which mention recurring jokes only in passing (GrindtXX provides an indicative list of trivial mentions, which contribute absolutely nothing to notability). This is a !vote to merge rather than delete because this article is much better-sourced than Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye), and the main article doesn't mention a few better-known jokes. (The procedural issue is probably moot now, and it's mostly semantics anyway, but it's probably worth noting that none of the WP:PROCEDURAL circumstances pertain and that what "procedural keep" !voters seem to want is a speedy keep per criterion 2.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Due to Reader of the Pack’s excellent work rewriting and sourcing this I’d now say it easily appears to meet notability guidelines. There are no delete votes so I think I can withdraw this without controversy. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cloggies[edit]

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

Mishmash of extreme fancruft and WP:COATRACK about some IRL clog dancing thing, with only two very poor citations. The strip is mentioned in a lot of sources but unless in-depth coverage can be found to make this article passable it should be covered at the author’s page. No idea about the real clog dudes. Dronebogus (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect per the editing policy. We shouldn't use deletion as an improvement tool, it's not designed for that and is counter productive. Clean it up or let it be, there's no deadline and we're here to collaborate, and there's no real harm here. Embrace some quirkiness. 🙂 Hiding T 09:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Embrace some quirkiness”? If that means “let poorly sourced articles that sound like fan blog posts stay” then that’s definitely WP:NOT why Wikipedia exists. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally not what I mean, check the edit history of WP:NOT, if you go back far enough you'll see the bits I wrote. Embrace some quirkiness means exactly what it means. Happy days, peace hugs and kisses. Hiding T 21:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per @Hiding. In theory could be merged properly into either Private Eye or some sort of "list of Private Eye comic strips" pages, but again no-one's actually going to do the work for that and keeping as-is is preferable that either delete or redirect which is also basically a delete. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Nobody’s actually going to do the work”? Seriously? That’s your keep argument? Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's my "why delete this right now instead of looking at any way of salvaging the content?" argument. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was able to find a copy of the Guardian for the date in question. However the issue here is that it doesn't really back up the claim about a stage performance. There's mention about a group of cloggies coming on stage, however it comes across like they were a part of the stage performance of Comus rather than a performance by a specific group called the Cloggies. Something to note is that the term was presumably popularized by this time, so it could have just been a random group of dancers. Since we don't have any discoverable proof that this group ever existed, I'm removing this section - especially as it (and much of the article) is written in a non-neutral, almost joking tone. If it's to be kept it needs good sourcing and serious work. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was and still is a difficult topic to find sourcing for. Here's the general gist of why it's difficult:

It looks like the bulk of Cloggie specific sourcing was most likely published from the 1960s through the 1980s. The popularity of Cloggie, along with The Forsyte Saga, made him an appealing person to have on TV and radio. It's at this point where he branched out more and put out other work - although he's still touted as "Billy Tidy of Cloggies and The Forsyte Saga fame". It's just that at this point both series have ended, so the focus is more on his current work.

What I have been able to find talks about The Cloggies like the reader should be more than familiar with the work in question. These types of sources, along with the more substantial coverage I've found for the strip (as well as general human interest pieces like this) and its doomed stage production, heavily imply that there is more sourcing out there. It's just not available online or at least in places I can access. It's why I'm willing to argue for a keep here as opposed to a merge. It just doesn't help that this was written in a joking, fan-like fashion, which to be honest did not make me optimistic that I would find anything. I was surprised to find what I did. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, it looks like at one point Tidy was looking into taking legal action against the series Brass, as he felt it was too similar to Cloggies. Not sure what to do with the source, since I'm a bit hesitant to add it without more. There's mention of a magazine article that also covered the similarities, so there's definitely more out there. This is kind of an example of what I wrote above - there's more out there but it's uncovering and accessing it that is the issue here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your godlike patience cleaning up this article. You are absolutely right it’s a mess, which previous keep voters seemed to be in denial about. Dronebogus (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2023 (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. Consensus isn't going to emerge to delete this. A merger discussion does not require continued AfD. Please use the Talk. Star Mississippi 14:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of regular mini-sections in Private Eye[edit]

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

Non-notable fancruft list. Could very lightly merge into the parent but doesn’t need to exist separately. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Popular culture, Lists, and United Kingdom. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only two of these things listed have their own articles, Colemanballs and The Luvvies. Dream Focus 08:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hope you are well! Hiding T 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced WP:FANCRUFT. Anything remotely notable may be able to be merged to Private Eye#Notable columns. Ajf773 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up or merge per nominator. Not sure why we're at deletion? Hiding T 21:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That… isn’t an argument? Dronebogus (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No but it is policy. You've nominated an article for deletion but noted it could be merged. Per policy you shouldn't therefore nominate it for deletion, you should merge it, so we don't need to be here and there is no argument. Best wishes, Hiding T 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I’m saying it could be partially merged, but I’m not sure if it should. Different thing than “this should be merged but I’m sending it to AfD” Dronebogus (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you're not sure it should be merged but you're sure it should be deleted, yet you've suggested it could be merged. Begs the question as to why you haven't tried a merge to see if it works, for example. Which is in line with editing policy and best practise on Wikipedia. Hiding T 11:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure it should be deleted either. It could be deleted and merged (that is, deleted without redirecting because a redirect is implausible). There’s also WP:MADEUP concerns (is a “mini-section” even a real thing or just something an editor coined out of convenience?) Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can't delete and merge. Because of the license you have to preserve the edit history. Might be worth familiarising yourself with key policies on Wikipedia. Also not clear why you say a redirect is implausible. I'm also not clear why we're at afd on this one when there are alternatives that haven't been pursued. Wikipedia is losing too many articles and editors because to me it feels like there's a trend towards listing problems for deletion rather than fixing them, and the low volume of debate around potential is undermining the purpose of the site. Anyways, I think that's my last word on the subject, the argument seems to be circular. I'm still not clear why we're at AFD and in three responses the nominator has failed to convince me they know why either, which is worrisome to me. There are better fixes available here than deletion, that's the thrust of my argument and I don't see it changing. Peace and best wishes, Hiding T 05:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the main article. Sources almost certainly exist for all of those sections, but I don't see the point in a secondary article, the primary one doesn't have size concerns. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per concurrent discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#XfD ban proposal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in Private Eye. A merge is not a great outcome from this AfD given the recent history here, and should instead be discussed on relevant talk pages. —siro χ o 08:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no coverage of these as a group is cited in the article or has been identified here, and I haven't been able to find any such coverage. I don't see anything worth merging here – all of the content is too far down in the weeds to be worthwhile in any encyclopaedia article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fancruft involves trivial stuff, this is Private Eye, one of the most important magazines in the UK, and this article summarises their most popular and significant articles. This article should be kept on notability grounds alone doktorb _words^deeds 23:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As so many other cases this is a blatant case of an article needing cleanup and effort, not deletion. Sadly too many people see AFD as a form of cleanup, which it is not supposed to be.★Trekker (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a potential merge shouldn't be discussed at AfD, and I don't think that a compelling argument for deletion has been made anywhere. The fact that the nominator is now CBANned from XfD is not strictly relevant, especially since the concerns raised about their behaviour were not primarily about bad-faith nominations. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 18:33, 17 August 2023 (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!} 17:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough significant coverage to justify passing WP:GNG, at least not yet. Draftify if needed, but every youth player does not need a Wikipedia article before they gain significant coverage as senior players. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the previous two nominations of Dan Gore for deletion were about a 2000s-decade American sportsperson. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Lucky Luke albums and merge encyclopedic content. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Les Collines noires[edit]

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

Like most albums from that series, there is nothing here to indicate notability (and no references); content is catalogue info on publication plus a lenghty plot summary. French language article is longer but also has no reception, reviews, awards, or like, listed. My BEFORE yields next to nothing. Perhaps sources exist in French; Dutch and German are similar to what we have or less. What little I found is: [51] has a mention in passing. I am having trouble machine translating [52] (mirror on ProQuest), but it seems to be another mention in passing - but the album is called "famous"? Or is it a mistranslation and it's a reference to the series? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Comics and animation, and Belgium. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lucky Luke or similar, a famous album, sold millions of copies, translated in a dozen languages or so, but hasn't really received the necessary attention despite all this. Fram (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to at least preserve the history; there possibly are sources out there in print and/or in non-English but like many of the Bande dessinee entries it doesn't look like anyone will be looking into them. I am sympathetic towards the difficulty in easily finding sources for non-recent, non-American comic sources, but many of the Lucky Luke entries seem indulgent; sampling Category:Lucky Luke albums reveals that most entries are 50% plot, 50% OR.

Honestly, if I had the time I'd suggest a List of Lucky Luke albums that had an episode guide-type format with short summaries and subheadings for redirecting to, which I personally feel is a great way of saving a lot of the content on many abandoned comic pages. But I doubt I'll have time to do so within the foreseeable, and experience has taught me no-one reading AfDs is likely to do anything proactive either. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa Actually, folks in fiction area have been rescuing stuff, mysef included. User:TompaDompa and @Siroxo have been quite active in recent memory. I am unsure if I'd have time create such a list - not sure what format would be good - but I'd help to merge some entries to it if someone would start it. I agree that many entries from the mentioned category need either improvement or reduction to redirects since, as you say, they are just plot summaries with no indication of reception or significance :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus User:BoomboxTestarossa/List of Lucky Luke albums is a very, very quick and nasty demonstration of what I would personally do, which could well be wrong, and I've just cut & pasted text for the summaries. It would very much be all plot, but it would be limited to one page; the Lucky Luke page is long as it is so housing it there would add to the clutter and likely just get split anyway. This way at least all the plot-heavy stuff would be limited to a single page, which could then be used as a foundation should the editors and/or sources come along to build the section back up. The covers could all go as the page wouldn't justify 50 images (and should any ever be returned to standalone they can be found easily) and the text would wrap better; at a cursory glance the "characters" section is repetition of stuff mentioned in the ~~synopsisesises~~ summaries, and any sort of analysis/notes seem to be uncited at best and OR at worst, so again are probably best cut. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa Fair enough. I'd encourage you to publish this and then we can vote to redirect/merge stuff there, or be bold and merge stuff without spending time at AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea. I couldn't find enough to "rescue" this individual nominated article, but this is just a great way to move forward. I do think the cover images would still be allowed per WP:NFCCP, but as an editorial decision I'm fine either way. —siro χ o 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I could go either way on the images... I would feel that a) the page doesn't "deserve" to have 50 images when it would still need so much work, compared to many much better maintained comic articles making do with only one or two and b) it would cause untidiness as it would make the infobox longer than the summaries in some cases. But I'm not going to fight it if other people think otherwise.

Just to be absolutely crystal clear, I'm correct in thinking that publishing order (rather than alphabetical) is the best way to order them, yes? Not sure when I'm going to get the current article I'm working on complete for sure, but hopefully I will be onto it tomorrow. Though if someone does want to just take the text from the draft and do it in the meantime they're more than welcome. TBH I wish I'd thought of it before redirecting all the very similar Valérian and Laureline entries some months ago, but maybe one day I'll have time to rescue those from page histories...

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like MOS:WORKS has you covered: Items should normally be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first..

If the infoboxes would take too much vertical space, I agree, let's ditch the images for now. Maybe a single image on only the first infobox would give enough visual context to readers who prefer it?

I am not super familiar with this topic (or Valerian and Laureline for that matter) but if I get some time I can try to help merging all the articles into one.

—siro χ o 00:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the infoboxes and images, they look good. Even if we need to drop the images due to copyright (paranoia), infoboxes are good for structured (machine readable) data too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can tomorrow, it didn't actually take as much time as I thought it might. Personally I feel it would be a waste to debate beforehand as again the pages seem to have been tagged for some time with various concerns. Makes more sense to me that we treat them all the same and just get it done rather than spin the AfD roulette wheel and end up with inconsistencies. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect based on BoomboxTestarossa's draft. —siro χ o 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First ten (up to and not including Lucky Luke contre Joss Jamon) are on List of Lucky Luke albums. A slight unexpected bump on a couple has been that once you cut out the unsourced commentary there's not actually a lot left. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa Thank you. Quick question: is the content there based on anything that has been redirected? I know there ara mny similar entries in the series, but I wonder if we need, pro forma, list each and every one here for a separate AFD before redirect/merging? Or will you do merge discussions with templates? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus sorry, not sure if it's because it's late but I'm not really tracking what you mean =/ I just copied the content so far (well, infobox and summaries) and redirected a couple of the pages, sorry if that wasn't the right thing to do. I think I've put merge templates on all the albums, for getting the order right I just followed the 'next' page on each individual article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa That's fine with me, although someone can revert redirect and requet AfD for each page. I am torn between disliking redirects without discussion as a form of 'stealth deletion' vs what can be seen as wasting folks time here with cases that apepar clear. That said, in the past I've been shown that cases I've considered clear are not always so, and some articles have been rescued when I thought this could not have been done. But with history preserved and this discussion and the list created that effectivley has most content, I think your solution is pretty good. For cases you think some notability could exist based on whatever, a merge notice and/or more AfDs would be fine too. Once again, thank you taking your time and creating the list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge based on BoomboxTestarossa's draft - a very good middle-ground for conserving info on wikipedia that due to age likely couldn't be covered encyclopedically here otherwise. I'd blanket-support dealing with similar LL articles likewise. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:25, 15 August 2023 (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!} 06:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad operation[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:FORK from Abbas Doran providing nothing new. A 2 plane bombing mission where 1 plane was shot down isn't notable and fails WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fails to indicate any degree of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meet WP:GNG: planes in order to show Baghdad's airspace as unsafe and with the aim of preventing the holding of the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Baghdad.--Patricia (Talk) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Intothat darkness 16:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any notability would seem to be on the meeting of the NAM... a meeting for which I cannot find and article (or strong RS). The operation itself in clearly NN. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see this :Non-Aligned Movement Summits. (1892 cancelled due to Iran–Iraq War).--Patricia (Talk) 13:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I was confused. The NAM article shows the 6th (1979, Havana) and 7th (1983 New Delhi), and the only reference to 1982 in the article is the publication date of a source. The article in question here has a very weak source (it's hard to call "a semi-official news agency of the Iranian government" an impartial RS), but I was able to find these two [53] [54] that might add value to the NAM article. I still see no value in this one as a freestanding article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a paragraph for Baghdad Operation to the NAM article, summarising this fascinating incident and included the new sources. I omitted only the Mehr citation which I just cannot justify as an RS. I kept the dubious shahid-dowran.ir one simply because I can't confirm anything negative about the source itself, even though it certainly carries a highly-partizan tone. If there is someone who reads Persian natively, your input would be invaluable. Google Translate just doesn't cut it for evaluating the quality of a source overall. This does not impact the discussion of whether this subject deserves its own article (I still believe it does not), but the NAM article deserved at least a summary. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Much Thanks. Undrestood.best.-- Patricia (Talk) 14:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria[edit]

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

A redlink in the Indonesian WP, this subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Apart from much detail regarding his family (his father and mother's articles, by the same author (tagged as closely connected to the subject in Indonesian) also fail WP:GNG - although the father's AfD closed as 'No consensus' a couple of months back. Sourcing is primary or unverifiable (the first source is about the subject's father, the second a contribution to a poetry anthology and it doesn't get any better), there's no evidence of notability as an academic and the books are little more than pamphlets as far as I can ascertain. The 'award' is not a bluelink. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Indonesia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The award he won seems to translate to "National Book Award" in the category for "Best Islamic Book". Was unable to find reviews of that book, likely to be in Indonesian. Curbon7 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this person is a Bruneian not Indonesian. I read this article and many words including phrase, etc. referred to Brunei. Ariandi Lie ^{Ariandi Lie} 04:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Seems to lack reliable sources which is especially critical for BLP. Wozal (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2023 (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. There is consensus here that the article as currently framed is unacceptable synthesis. There may be scholarly sources dealing with related material, but there is consensus that this material is better covered as part of a broader article. The argument against redirecting as opposed to outright deletion is weaker; the existence of a redirect does not necessarily endorse the notability or existence of the subject; but given the oddity of the title and the opposition to merging or redirecting, I'm deleting this outright. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

H₂weh₁yú[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedic topic. It is a bunch of synthesis based around a name that is not attested by anyone other than Proto-Indo-European reconstructionists. It is a modern creation being fraudulently passed off as ancient. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question. @Walt Yoder: I am not clear on the deletion rationale here. Are you suggesting there is WP:SYNTHESIS in this article itself, or perhaps that the article is non-NPOV in giving WP:UNDUE representation toward a specific view on PIE reconstruction, or something different? —siroχo 06:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps my nomination is lacking, because I struggle to see how this is any different than people making narratives around Pokemon characters and cannot give a dispassionate assessment. If there is no coverage outside of a walled garden of PIE reconstructionists, it shouldn't be a stand-alone article. And if it is presented as verifiable historical fact, it is inaccurate. Either would be reason for this not to be an article in its current form. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if a bunch of scholars have made up a name and created a body of literature around it, then no matter how bad the scholarship, and even if the bunch of scholars also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, and have to be taken back home by understanding policemen when they're found wearing their underpants on their heads in public, we have to report their work. So my question to Walt Yoder is "Are you saying that this concept doesn't exist in sources, but has been generated by Wikipedian Proto-Indo-European reconstructionists, or are you saying that the concept does exist in sources but is misguided and false, a product of very bad scholarship?". If the former, the article should be deleted, if the latter, it should be kept, but it would be right to add the opposing evaluation of the name, provided that another bunch of scholars have said it's a fraudulent thing. Elemimele (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elemimele, I would like to be there, at a safe distance, to see this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article don't provide evidence of the notability of this reconstructed word. Mallory & Adams 2006 has one sentence on the subject; West 2007 has two sentences, along with some discussion of the cognates of the root word H₂weh₁; and Vassilkov, as far as I can tell, doesn't mention the word at all. The content sourced to Vassilkov appears to be synthesis; and the Etymology section, according to the article author, is AI generated and unverified. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sojourner in the earth: Vassilkov, as far as I can tell, doesn't mention the word at all I agree, Vassilkov does not use the name but he does discuss the topic of the article in some detail, the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European god of wind. Therefore it is significant as a source. Where do you see synthesis derived from Vassilikov? At first glance it looked like normal summary to me. Daranios (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Vassilkov discusses the god in detail. I see two pieces of relevant information: (1) that the Proto-Slavic *Vey and the Indo-Iranian Vayu may be descendents of the PIE wind god; and (2) that the PIE god "was probably marked by ambivalence", as evidenced by the fact that later wind gods had a dual nature. I don't consider this to be significant coverage. As for the other two sources, Mallory & Adams 2006 doesn't mention a god, and West 2007 only says that the word *H₂weh₁ is of the animate gender, implying an active force.

On your question about the synthesis: there are two sentences in the article cited to this source. The first reads: The Slavic Viy is another possible cognate. Since the source doesn't use the word *H₂weh₁, then of course it doesn't say that Viy is a cognate of it. We might infer that, but it isn't stated. The second sentence is: He is hypothesized to have been linked to life and death through adding and taking breath from people. The source argues that the Indo-Iranian Vayu had this attribute, but it doesn't say the same of the PIE god. It is synthesis to take two distinct claims from the source ("Vayu had the power of life and death", "Vayu is descended from the PIE god") and draw an original conclusion ("The PIE god had the power of life and death"). Now I think about it, though, the article doesn't make this claim in wiki-voice so I suppose it's not technically synth, it's just factually incorrect; it's claiming that the source says something that it doesn't say.

The reason I assumed that the subject of the article was the word and not the god is because there appears to be almost nothing to say about the god. Take the article as it is now; then remove the two sentences quoted above; remove the unsourced AI-generated content; remove the irrelevant information about other gods, remove the misleading sentence Such a deity is attested in most traditions (because the deity is in fact not attested at all); and we are left with (a) an etymology of *H₂weh₁, (b) its cognates, and (c) a claim that this may have been the name of a PIE wind-god (charitably assuming that a source can be found for such a claim, since none of the three existing sources quite make this connection). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sojourner in the earth: I have changed "cognate" to "equivalent entity" (like in the infobox), to correct this to what Vassilkov is actually saying. Is that better? Vassilkov discusses the opposing scholarly views that the Proto-Indo-European god of wind may be beneficial like Vayu or ambivalent like other wind gods, and why, a his conclusion. So in my view there's indeed something to tell. And I think Such a deity is attested in most traditions is correct, because "such a deity" is not meant not refer to "the god of the wind in Proto-Indo-European mythology", but only to "god of wind". And then it's a direct summary of West's "In most branches of the tradition we find evidence for the personification of the wind or winds, and in some cases for their receipt of religious honours.", who then goes on to list a number of examplary wind gods. So I guess the context/phrasing should be made clearer. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Vassilkov differently than you, but admittedly I'm new to this subject area. If we grant that Vassilkov provides significant coverage, then that's one source contributing towards notability, but GNG requires in-depth discussion in multiple sources. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Changing to Comment based on work done by JungleEntity below. I still think there is value in an article about the PIE God of Wind. However, I am no longer convinced that this is the right article for it, so I'll stay neutral. Three RS and notable within narrow context of subject matter. The objections above are to the reconstructed word not the subject of the article which is a PIE deity. What do you plan to call the article, 'The Proto-Indo-European Wind God whose Name We're Arguing Over'? Also, there are roughly twenty articles of the same stripe being discussed as Talk:Walhaz. Are all of them are ripe for deletion or just this reconstructed word for a very real concept/thing? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Last1in: I am not at all into these naming conventions. You wouldn't have a secondary source for the names under discussion at Talk:Walhaz (which does or does not confirm the use of *)? I agree that the scope of our article here is not only the word but also the concept. And West has "h2weh1-yú-", so I think we can use that or something similar established in secondary sources rather than having to go to "Proto-Indo-European wind god". Daranios (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the sources as I'm not in this field at all. I recognise the concept of PIE mythology, and feel that Whoever-it-is the Wind God is a valid article for an encyclopaedia. I do know that people on the linguistic side use the leading asterisk (it has a name that I haven't spent a brain cell to try and remember) to denote a reconstructed word. However, I also know that it makes a remarkably terrible title for an article. I can't believe that there is a reader out there, including those in the field, that would even imagine using that character in their search. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this title already has two subscripted numbers and an accent. Anyone who is going to search on this name with those characters will have no trouble with the *. All other arguments notwithstanding. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep or merge: I think the nomination is fundamentally flawed: Wikipedia is a general and specialized encyclopedia. So like Elemimele I believe if a topic is relevant to a narrow area of research, we still do not gatekeep from including that if attested in reliable secondary sources. Neither the article nor the cited sources "fraudulently passed off as ancient" the concept; rather it is clear that it is a reconstruction based on usual academic tools. (And isn't everything we cannot view and grasp ourselves a similar reconstruction, from the atom to dinosaurs to all of history past living memory?) That said, I don't have access to Mallory & Adams, but based on what is discussed above with Sojourner in the earth, volumewise one could probably treat the subject just as well at Indo-European mythology#Wind deities than as a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant information in Mallory and Adams is the following (this is in the context of a long list of words related to the weather): The words for "wind", *h2weh1-yus (Lith vejas "wind" and Skt vayu- "wind") and *h2weh1-nt- (e.g. NWels gwynt, Lat ventus, NE wind, Av vata-, Skt vata-, Toch B yente, Hit huwant-, all "wind"), both derive from the verb "to blow".
On your suggestion to merge to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities: ~~I could support a redirect to that article~~, but not a merge. Much of the content of H₂weh₁yú was copied from that article to begin with, and I don't think that any of the additions that have been made since the split are worth merging back in. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC) ETA: Striking my support for a redirect; Sirfurboy makes a good point that a redirect to the mythology article would be misleading. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth: See my comment below why I (still) think a limited merge is the best solution. Daranios (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having evaluated the article sources and conducted searches on the name I am leaning delete here. Per Elemimele, my immediate reaction to the nom. statement was that if scholars have reconstructed the name of this deity and speak of it, the page should be kept, whereas if Wikipedia editors have reconstructed the name, we probably have WP:SYNTH. The nom. is not clear which is meant. However, looking at the sources, we have three. Mallory & Adams (2006) tell us that the word *H₂weh₁yús is the reconstructed word for wind. West (2007), gives two words for wind, *H₂weh₁yú and *H₂weh₁y-nt-. Neither tells us of a god of wind by that name, although West does find the derived name in the name of a Hittite power (not a god), huwantus. Vassilkov (2001) finds an indo-european root for Viy, but does not attempt to reconstruct the god. Per Sojourner in the earth we don't therefore have any source that attests a hypothesis that there was an indo-european god known by this name. The article title is the PIE reconstructed word for the wind. It is a reasonable hypothesis that a wind god existed that was related to this name, but why not "wind father" or similar. The god need not be given the same name as the reconstructed word for wind. Moreover, it is equally likely that the wind was understood in terms of animism rather than polytheism, and West's evidence points in that direction. In summary then, we have no sources making the specific claim of this article, that such a hypothesised god existed. This article takes three good sources and reaches a conclusion that none of them reach. This page is therefore WP:SYNTH and should be deleted. I note that Indo-European mythology#Wind deities already contains the information from West and Mallory & Adams, which are good sources when rightly understood. I do not therefore see the need to merge anything from this article and it can be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Vassilkov does attempt to reconstruct the god (to a degree): He talks about "a Proto-Indo-European god of wind" proposed by Abaev and a "reconstructed Indo-European god of wind, who had no sinister qualities" proposed by Ivanov, who also posited "Basically the Indo-European god was of a heavenly and benevolent nature". (I don't have access to either original publication, that would be interesting.) Vassilkov himself concludes: "it should be noted that even in the earliest Proto-Indo-European mythology, the image of the Wind-god was probably marked by ambivalence, and combined in itself both positive and negative characteristics." Daranios (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the thesis posits a proto-indo-european god of wind, but does not attempt to name it. It is the identification of the reconstructed PIE word for wind, *H₂weh₁yú with this posited and purely hypothetical god that is the SYNTH here. We are going beyond the sources to say that such a god was called H₂weh₁yú. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA Vassilkov quotes (Ivanov, 1971) which is a Russian language text that I cannot locate, but Vassilkov says more, elsewhere:

The figure of a god, probably the god of death, has, instead of a face and the upper part of the trunk, something resembling a grill. There is now sufficient material to reconstruct the image of the most ancient Indo-Iranian (and possibly Indo-European) god of death - as the god of wind and death. (Vassilkov, 1994:785)

So his thesis appears to be that the most ancient Indo-Iranian god of death is probably derived directly from the Indo-European god of wind and death. If we accept his thesis, we have a god, but we don't have reason to name that god H₂weh₁yú. We do, however, have evidence for the god's image, and that information may be notable for Indo-European mythology.

Vassilkov, Yaroslav (1 January 1994). "Some Indo-Iranian mythological motifs in the art of the Novosvobodnaya ('Majkop') culture". South Asian Archaeology 1993.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Now the identified problem, that Wikipedia article went beyond what the sources actually said, has been thankfully been remedied by Austronesier. Now the article puts West and Vassilkov and the rest in perspective. A good reason to put this together is that West does that, too. Not only does he point out "in most branches of the tradition we find evidence for the personification of the wind or winds", but also puts the name analysis under the heading "Wind Gods". However, to avoid any impression that the reconstructed name for wind has to be that of the reconstructed god, even if we don't say that, it's probably better to present that under the heading Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities rather than as a stand-alone article. Again, just as West does. But Vassilkov should be added there as a source, because he provides a worthwhile aspect to the area not yet present there. Daranios (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply to this just to try to help the closer. What you argue is that one of the sources here could usefully be employed on Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities. I am not convinced that is due, in fact, because personification of winds is not deification. In anthropology, animism tends to precede and progress to polytheism, but is not the same thing. Vassilkov does have a thesis about such a god, but even so, describes it only in terms of possibility. If you want to write that up on that page, that is fine, but it is not a merge from this page which makes (or made, as some has been deleted now) claims that went beyond any source. Thus my view is firmly that this page needs deletion, and not merge nor redirect. The reason is that (a) there is nothing here to merge there and (b) that a merge will leave a redirect there, and any redirect of this article name to that page is itself WP:OR. It is a suggestion that the reconstructed PIE word for wind (*H₂weh₁yú) was the name of the PIE god of wind. Again, we do not know there was a god of wind, and if there was, we don't know that the speakers of PIE named him simply "wind". As it happens, the sources are not even unanimous on the spelling of the word! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: I am still convinced a merge of the current, reworked version + redirect is the best solution: Neither the current version nor the target claim an identification of the word with the deity beyond what's in the sources any more, so the problem of original research is dealt with. The compact summary of the article by Vassilkov, which is not present at Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities, does fit exactly the subtopic as designated by that heading. So there is something to merge in my view. The word for wind is present there as well (the fact that "the sources are not even unanimous on the spelling" notwithstanding). I think noone has so far requested the removal there (although maybe that's because it's beyond the scope of our discussion here). But to me it makes sense that it is present there, not as a personal opionion, but because West also decided to treat it under the heading "Wind Gods" of his book, too. And as the word is present, it makes sense to have the redirect there. As for the last point, that a connection between the reconstructed word and the reconstructed deity might be implied by such a redirect, even if it is not present at the target: On the one hand, I think that connection will more be made by us, who now have the background of our article here, rather than a reader without any foreknowledge. On the other hand, if preferred, we could point the redirect as an anchor to the word directly rather than the heading "Wind deities", to exclude such an implication. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another relevant if brief source: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, p. 584, echoing pretty much what's in West. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, similar to West. A little more discussion of actual wind gods in Sanskrit, but again, no identification of a posited PIE wind god called *H₂weh₁yú. This page is going beyond the evidence in positing the name of a PIE wind god where no source claims such a god existed. We have sources for reconstructed words and sources for later attested gods where the names of the gods appear to be derived from the reconstructed word, but no one is saying that there was a wind god called *H₂weh₁yú and thus neither should we. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evidence of SYNTH brought by others. The edit summary "etymology section is AI generated so needs verification" is damning. Draftify might be an option. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, History, Language, and Religion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Obvious WP:ATD is a redirect to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities. Curbon7 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a suitable target if one is determined, or delete ~~or merge to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities,~~ as WP:ATD. —siro χ o 22:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is it redirects a word that is unattested as the name of a god to an article that thus implies it is attested. It would make more sense to redirect to something about reconstructed PIE words. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "not attested by anyone other than Proto-Indo-European reconstructionists"

This is how historical linguistics works. Who else would be constructing PIE? PIE is unattested but is still a very serious topic of research. I don't have enough knowledge on PIE itself to want to weigh in on this specific article, but I do worry this AFD is being done in a vacuum with understanding the nature of how linguistic reconstructions work and why and how they are considered valid.

It is a modern creation being fraudulently passed off

If this is about PIE reconstructions, no, this isn't the case. This is a major, serious field of historical linguistics and is not even vaguely fringe. If this is about this specific article then I think we need to get some PIE experts to weigh in, because I think there's a risk of something worthwhile being deleted by those unfamiliar with PIE and Indo-European Mythology. Warrenmck (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck: I suggest to read Sirfurboy's arguments carefully. The discussion has went far beyond the admittedly poorly-argued rationale by the OP. The concept of a IE wind deity is discussed in the relevant literature, the IE word for wind is reconstructed with a high level of confidence, but: claiming that Proto-IE speakers would have called the IE wind deity *H₂weh₁yú is nowhere found in the literature and thus WP:SYNTH, if mildly spoken (@Sirfurboy being too nice, as always), or in plain words (me being blunt, as alwys), a forgery. –Austronesier (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only point I was trying to make here is that PIE reconstructions are not fringe, I don’t know enough about this exact topic to want to weigh in beyond some of the initial statements of the submitter which looked critical of PIE itself, rather than the article. Otherwise I’d have said keep, but it does look like this article is a big SYNTH issue. Warrenmck (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Warrenmck: It took me some time to get behind the OP's rationale, but they specifically talk about "PIE reconstructionists", i.e. people doing pseudo-neoreligious IE amateur fancruft (search for "reconstructionist"+"Indo-european" in Google), not about academic IE studies. @Walt Yoder: correct me if I'm wrong; if you put Mallory & Adams into the same league, many of us will disagree. –Austronesier (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read "PIE reconstructionists" as "Evolutionists", i.e. othering a mainstream field (unintentionaly in this case), so perhaps that's just a differing read on our part, and if I misunderstood @Walt Yoder then my sincere apologies! Warrenmck (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics asking for input. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can also confirm that Mallory and Adams doesn't have the word in question in it, just the root for wind. From what I've read above, if only source 3 implies the PIE God of Wind, I still don't think it's a good to stand on one source. JungleEntity (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that treating this as a god's name seems to be synthesis. As West (2007) says in Chapter 3 (I don't know the pages) "Of the many individual gods that the Indo-Europeans must have known by name, very few can now be identified." The section from which this page was split was just named "Wind deities", which corresponds with West's section title "Wind gods" in Chapter 6. This seems to be an instance where he does not claim that the reconstructed word is the name of a deity, unlike *Dyēus. SilverLocust 💬 05:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sirfurboy. In the exisiting literature, *H₂weh₁yú stands for the reconstructed proto-IE for 'wind', nothing else. If we were to keep the article with this title, its content would be a mere dictionary entry (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). The claim that *H₂weh₁yú was the name of the IE wind deity is WP:orginal research, or bluntly: made-up. So what about the content? We could of course move the page to Indo-European wind deity (and delete the misleading redirect), but then the question is about WP:GNG. The possibilty of a dedicated wind deity in the mythology of proto-IE speakers is certainly discussed in the literature, but never treated as a topic of its own. The information we have in Proto-Indo-European_mythology#Wind_deities is comprehensive and best left there within its context. –Austronesier (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, the "Etymology" was generated by a stochastic parrot, so it needs to be expunged. Second, with the WP:SYNTH removed, there's nothing left beyond a brief dictionary entry. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I was reading through this AfD and was shocked by you making such a crass attack on the author's character, but I looked through the article history and realized that you were not speaking figuratively! I have, then, removed this sentence entirely — what the hell was that doing there in the first place? — golly gee whiz, what is the world coming to. jp×g

Comment. The PIE word for 'wind' is reconstructed for the weather phenomenon. As for a possible deity of winds, its name seems to be reconstructed from the Avestan and Indic deities, and no one else. Also, there is the problem of the wind/air gods in the daughter languages whose names are not cognates to the Indic/Avestan ones, making this PIE wind god sketchy at best. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: how do you even pronounce this? It looks like a name Elon Musk would inflict on a small child.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laryngeal theory#Pronunciation. Curbon7 (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems like everyone above agrees that the topic is notable but the title is not. It is not the role of an encyclopedia to manufacture acceptance of a word, so as it stands for me that's a clear delete. JMWt (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, I have argued against notability of the topic. Quoteing myself: The possibilty of a dedicated wind deity in the mythology of proto-IE speakers is certainly discussed in the literature, but never treated as a topic of its own. The information we have in Proto-Indo-European_mythology#Wind_deities is comprehensive and best left there within its context. –Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an enlarged DICDEF. Nothing we need to have an entire article about, could be a subsection in the main language article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would also be worthwhile to take a look at User:Immanuelle's, the author of the article in question, other articles about Proto Indo European deities. Many of their articles, such as PriHyéh₂ and Heryomen have dubious validity, with some sources listed not mentioning the subject of the article. In fact, in Heryomen, the Oxford Introduction to PIE (a cited source) lists a different reconstructed god for the god of war, "*ma¯wort-" (Page 409). Ironically, in that same section, Mallory and Adams stress that the commonly reconstructed PIE deities "are of uncertain or, frankly, doubtful validity.", despite it attracting more attention than other PIE semantic categories (which is probably the cause of these doubtful reconstructions). For Heryomen, Immanuelle cites from Mallory and Adams only a few pages relating to words about metals and weapons (as is the same with many of their other cited sources), leading me to conclude that they simply reconstructed this word, which is the entire subject of the article, themselves, constituting WP:Original Research. As I dig through more and more of their articles about PIE deities, I continue to only find the cited sources having a small, doubtful, reconstruction at best, or not mentioning what they are being cited for at worst.

Many mainstream scholars in Indo European linguistics (such as Anthony, Mallory and Adams, Fortson) will tell you that reconstructing more than Dyēus is putting yourself in murky waters, one where personal ideology sometimes has more influence than actual science. I implore other editors to take a look at these articles, just to make sure I'm not going crazy. JungleEntity (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not going crazy. I already had taken a look at these. I think they are all linked from List of Proto-Indo-European deities, but I am a little daunted by the process here. I believe there is a means to nominate multiple pages, but I have not used it. In any case, to do it diligently, we need to check the references on each, and that might need indivdual nominations. As you say, Dyḗus ph₂tḗr would likely be a keep. The un-named smith god doesn't make the dubious linguistic assertion of others. Ḱérberos might be better as a redirect etc. It's quite a lot of work. I hope to have more time in a week or so. Perhaps I will try nominating these at that time. In the meantime I will watchlist the lot in case anyone else wants to do so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start going through sources, and probably make a draft page of my list vetting each. I'll link it here when I'm done. JungleEntity (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally closed this discussion with this comment:

The result was merge‎ to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities. This discussion didn't really require a relisting but when I first read it over, it required some time to digest alll of the comments on a subject that I'm unfamiliar with. I think this is a closure that editors can be satisfied with. If not, then I guess I can see you at Deletion Review.

But my closure was challenged on my talk page with a compelling argument so I have undone the Merge and will leave this discussion for another closer to handle as apparently, even though I thoroughly reviewed all of the comments here, I didn't get deep enough into the weeds to assess the fundamental problems with this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mallory & Adams mentions the reconstructed PIE word(s). West mentions it (in somewhat different form) and relates it to words in other languages which in some cases can mean divine powers. Neither reconstruct that the PIE word itself meant a deity or deities, or trace the gods of different traditions back to a reconstructed common origin. Vassilkov, who doesn't mention the word but does have relevant material, seems ambivalent and I'm not really sure what to make of it (conclusion: "Even if Abaev's hypothesis is considered proven, we still face the problem: does the interrelation between Vayu and Viy imply a parallel development from a common Indo-European source, or it is to be traced back to Indo-Iranian cultural influence on Slavic mythology?"). Overall it's pretty scant material to work with for an article.
On the question of alternatives, I wouldn't be too upset with a redirect, if it remains mentioned at Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities: the redirect's existence by itself doesn't imply we're saying that H₂weh₁yú is a deity. It would be a redirect because here's the one place in the encyclopedia where you'll find anything about what you just searched (and if you read that one place, it should only say what's verifiable about it). Mostly, though, I just think it's an unlikely search term so that's why I'd go with delete. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2023 (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!} 05:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brice Bexter[edit]

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

Not finding sourcing for this person, most of the acting parts appear minor roles. Oaktree b (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Morocco, France, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I felt there was sufficient media coverage, although some of the sources are not in English. Starklinson (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 10 August 2023 (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!} 05:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find sourcing that discusses this individual, could perhaps redirect to the political party he founded. No sourcing for GNG or NBIO. Oaktree b (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Oaktree b (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slew of very short or trivial coverage, I don't see a way of constructing WP:BASIC from English language coverage though. I am not sure if a redirect is sufficient, due to how common the name is, so I'll suggest convert to disambig. I've created Ankur Sharma (disambiguation) that could be used for this. —siro χ o 08:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Redirect (party page) being an Indian I see it at the personal level this person seems notable as he’s founded political party which does have seats being the party president/founder he gets to have an article on the Wikipedia under politics project on wikipedia, but He doesn’t have independent articles as everything in the news for him comes along with his party. Autograph (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the creator of this article seems highly experienced, also I have added 2 new sources. Autograph (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He hasn't held any political position that would constitute an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is not referenced to anything like enough coverage about him to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2023 (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!} 04:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gether[edit]

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

The article, as written, has issues with WP:GNG. The topic is rather obscure (the subject "appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible, and both times is only mentioned in passing in genealogical lists") and cited sources are just SIGCOV-failing mentions in passing on some genealogical lists. My BEFORE failed to find anything better. I hope participants in the discussion here can find better sources or suggest a place to merge and redirect it in the spirit of ATD (final clarification: I am AfDing it partially in an attempt to save this from deletion on pl wiki, where it was nominated, and where no good keep arguments are presented - but to be clear, right now, as I said, I am afraid this is not meeting en wiki GNG guideline, either). Can we rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fact that the Polish wikipedia is having a discussion about this subject need not influence us. And if I'm understanding correctly, we're considering deleting this because its nominator would rather it weren't deleted at the Polish wp, which seems a strange situation. I have no strong views either way, but would be inclined to keep the article unless anyone really objects. The Hebrew bible is undoubtedly one of the most influential books ever written, with a couple of thousand years of proven enduring interest; I'd rather have stubs saying what little is to be said about its minor characters than fill WP with fancruft on minor characters in TV shows and computer games (yup, other-stuff-exists argument!). I don't know where we could redirect to. Elemimele (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Christianity. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional fun fact from pl.wikipedia:

"According to Arab tradition, he is the father of Thamuda, who according to the Koran is Salij's brother." de.wikipedia has the citation but lost the sentence: Samir Mourad: Islamische Geschichte – Eine analytische Einführung. Deutscher Informationsdienst über den Islam (DIdI) e. V., 2007, S. 89.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we traditional keep articles about minor Biblical figures but a genealogy-only entry by itself is really pushing it. What makes this article keepable is the subsequent Jewish, Christian and Islamic commentary - they put sufficient meat on the bones to justify an article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry in the Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (on p. 841) speculates about various etymologies, and the author cites the views of four other scholars so there's clearly been secondary analysis of the name. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the scolarly coverage identified above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. The references sure add up! Also procedural keep per WP:POINT. I am taking the liberty to express both opinions alongside as their results are the same, while drawing attention to the fact that I hold both positions! gidonb (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2023 (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 see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trams in popular culture[edit]

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

This is effectively a list of works featuring trams plus random tram trivia. It includes works that mention trams even if said trams are not relevant to the story (ex. "The opening scene is set on W2 class tram 260") or "n the third of his Thomas Kell novels, A Divided Spy, Charles Cumming has a hitman arrive on a tram") or totally ridcolous trivia-level stuff like "Tramway, North Carolina, is an area of Lee County, North Carolina which politically forms part of Sanford." This is a terrible violation of WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, MOS:TRIVIA, WP:IPC and WP:NOTTVTROPES, in descending order of policy importance (WP:V too I guess, given lack of footnotes for most stuff here). I will note that AFAIK even TV Tropes itself doesn't have an entry for trams. Perhaps this could be transwikid to some tram fan wiki (https://trams.fandom.com/wiki/Tram ?), but it is certainly not encyclopedic type of content (obscure trivia and nothing but). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Transportation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE coatrack of original research; none of the sources provided actually describe "trams in popular culture" as a concept. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another targeted assassination of a section hived of from the main article, justified by a scary bombardment of policy links with mostly no relevance at all. By no means all of it is obscure or trivial, though more refs would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How do sources on the overarching topic—Trams in popular culture—treat it? TompaDompa (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially notable topic, but the actual content is just an example farm, so it passes WP:TNT threshold. It would only work if rewritten in prose format. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A cursory search on my part did not turn up any significant coverage on the overall topic of the depiction of trolleys or trams in pop culture or fiction, so I am not convinced the topic would actually pass the WP:GNG. And even if it did, this current article, a poorly sourced list of mostly trivial examples, would need to be removed so a proper article on the topic could be rewritten from the ground up. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:IINFO. Even if someone wanted to write a more encyclopedic entry about this topic, it would be best to write it as a section in the main article, with no reliable information to WP:PRESERVE from this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly what was done! But then it was decided to move it off to here. The old deletionist two-step. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Respectfully, when it was split the first revision of this article looked like this (and correspondingly, the last version of the main article before the section was moved looked like this). Clearly, the section was not constructed properly in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Have you considered the possibility that there is no "deletionist conspiracy', and you're just utterly failing at WP:AGF? "Targeted assassination," really? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article as it stands is basically a tram version of Internet Movie Car Database/ (just without the pictures). No evidence of any notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even TV tropes would just consider this “people sit on chairs”. We are not the Internet Tram Enthusiast Database. Dronebogus (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll say the same thing I said at WP:Articles for deletion/Tonfa in popular culture: Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. That same essay makes another point which is relevant here: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content; wanting to keep the main article "clean" is not a valid reason for having an article like this one. If editors add examples to the main Tram article based on primary sources (or more likely no sources whatsoever), the proper course of action is to remove those examples per MOS:POPCULT.
I would have no objection to recreating this as a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the topic—as was done for WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction—in the event that sources that would allow us to do that while abiding by MOS:POPCULT emerge. None of the current content would be of any use for that, however, so there's no point in retaining this version. TompaDompa (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this page offers information on a large number of subjects and, thus, makes a major contribution! If anything, it should be returned to its original place on the Tram page.Albert Isaacs (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how “it covers a large number of subjects” constitutes a keep argument. In any case you’re really just suggesting a merge, which is completely different. Dronebogus (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ITSINTERESTING... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I suggest restricting the page just to famous people who were keen on trams. This will keep the page to a manageable size.106.69.211.40 (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? Why? This isn’t “list of famous people who were keen on trams”. Write that article if sources exist, but please don’t WP:COATRACK it onto an existing one because it works if you squint real hard. Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this legitimate SPINOUT of trams. Frequent discussions of spinoffs and spinouts undermine the WP general structure, could make people hesitant to limit articles in size, and take valuable sources away from the article space, where our contributions matter the most. No objections to merging back, if a must to keep this content. Just really bad if this is where we come to. gidonb (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not a legitimate spinout. It's a mess of content that lacks proper sourcing. The problem isn't that people are hesitant to limit articles in size, but that they think that moving the content that needs to go to a new article somehow solves anything. If this content had simply been removed from the main article in the first place, the problem would have been solved. See my comment above on the essay WP:CARGO and other things. TompaDompa (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  As I said, if a must it can be moved back. Not my preference. Plus individual items need to be sourced. Then again AFDISNOTCLEANUP. We have too many and too long AfD debates. Not enough work is done in the article space. If something needs to be improved, this can be discussed on the talk page. gidonb (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  This cannot be improved, because it wasn't constructed even semi-properly in the first place. It would have to be replaced entirely. There is no content here to merge, for if the article were cleaned up, nothing would remain. We certainly have articles of similar scopes that are constructed properly—I have personally done that to e.g. Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture and Loch Ness Monster in popular culture during the course of their respective AfDs ([55][56])—but this is not. The key issue is not that individual items need to be sourced but that the overarching topic—Trams in popular culture—needs to be. TompaDompa (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Trams are a major mode of transportation. We should not underestimate their cultural significance. Outcomes of fantasy are both irrelevant and circular reasoning. gidonb (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  No, we shouldn't underestimate the cultural significance of trams. But we also cannot, per Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies create that significance ourselves or decide what it is by way of WP:Original research. We have to let the sources do that for us—what do sources say the cultural significance of trams is? What sources on the overarching topic of Trams in popular culture are there even? Surely you understand that the entirety of this article is an exercise in original research, proclaiming that this is the cultural significance of trams in the absence of reliable and relevant external sources saying so?
  I shouldn't have to explain this to you—you're a very experienced editor—but articles need to be based on sources on the topic of the article (in this case Trams in popular culture). If those sources do not exist, the article likewise cannot. Some things appear frequently in culture without having been analysed in that capacity by relevant sources—I doubt if there are sufficient sources analysing the role chairs play in culture to write a Chairs in popular culture article, for instance. Other things that appear somewhat frequently in culture do actually receive that kind of analysis from relevant sources. If you'll excuse the shameless self-promotion, Wikipedia has to the best of my knowledge only ever had a single piece of WP:Featured content about X in fiction/popular culture/whatever: Mars in fiction, a WP:Featured article that I worked on, which was promoted less than a month ago. The reason that was possible is that there are actually high-quality sources on the overarching topic (Robert Crossley's Imagining Mars: A Literary History and Robert Markley's Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination, to name just two). This is all to say that there is a known way to construct proper articles on topics like this, but it requires actually doing the legwork of locating sources doing the analysis and summarizing it in our own words (as with every other article on Wikipedia), not just collating raw data from WP:PRIMARY sources and calling it a day—the latter being in violation of policy, as this article is. This is not some revolutionary new idea, either—Uncle G wrote the essay WP:CARGO which outlines all of this back in 2008, fifteen years ago. TompaDompa (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Air in popualr culture... Grass in popular culture... People in popular culture... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  More seriously, I expect we could write a good article on cars in popular culture. Wait, we actually have a decent one. And lo and behold, it's decent because it is not a list of random works featuring cars but a sourced, prose-style analysis of the phenomana. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No that is correctly titled Effects of the car on societies, something totally different. It has an almost all-American section supposedly on Cars in popular culture, though much of it isn't. I contest it is "decent". Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing this once more (so not missed): Merging into trams is fine. I already supported keep at the beginning of this chain! The article is a SPINOUT. gidonb (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total WP:LISTCRUFT. Full of indiscriminate examples and original research. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of every time a tram or streetcar appeared in any sort of book or movie. The few encyclopedically notable instances can be mentioned in the tram article; 90% of what's in this spinoff is pointless trivia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and failing WP:NLIST, as I can't find any sources about the topic of the article (that being "Trams in popular culture", not "Trams", per WP:NOTINHERITED). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and a look at the page which covers a major historical topic. This list was a part of another page and split, only to come to AfD to be deleted? Not the way things should be done here as it was on the other article and not removed, so if this is "deleted" please return the text to its original page. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct that this is not the way things should be done—this should never have been created in the first place. We are stuck trying to undo an error made 3 years ago when an unwillingness to outright remove content without proper sourcing resulted in the creation of this article to sequester it outside of the main article.
  You say that this is a major historical topic. I challenge you to provide sources on the overarching topic—Trams in popular culture—to back that up. So far, nobody arguing for keeping the article has been able to present anything that would go towards establishing WP:Notability. TompaDompa (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - This, exactly. The problem here, and in many of these "in popular culture" spinout lists, is that when editors realized that the content should not be in an article, it should have just been removed from the article. Instead, the problem was just kicked down the road by simply moving it, which does not actually solve the problem, so here we are several years later with an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD is a mess because people are getting confused about why this list exists. There are two different reasons for budding off an article of this sort: (1) the topic is notable, sources discussing it independently; (2) some other article on a notable topic had a subsection that got too big. Many delete-voters here are deleting on the basis that the topic isn't discussed as a subject in sources, which is true. But our article on Trams has no "in popular culture" section because the section got too big and was split out to here. So really we're in a cat-flap situation (the cat that is In wants to be Out, while the cat that is Out wants to be In...). The cat can go out of the cat-flap by deleting this article and recreating an in-popular-culture section in Tram, and then that section will be too big, so it will have to be split out, and the cat will want to come back in again. Ultimately this is a clean-up situation, not really a deletion. The objection to the list is it contains a load of really tenuous stuff that shouldn't be there, and the same objection will exist if it's merged. So really, we would be spending our time better if we started to sort out the material rather than debating where to put it, as a whole. Elemimele (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The error was made at the start: instead of splitting off uncited and incongruous information to a new page, it should've been trimmed out. The "in fiction/culture" section wouldn't be this big if it contained 18 entries. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, not a single entry on the list has an appropriate source. Cleaning this up would thus be indistinguishable from deleting it—there would be nothing left. This should be obvious to anybody who has ever written a proper article on a topic like this. TompaDompa (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if this didn't just read as a list of tram sightings without much substance, the fact that most of the facts listed in the article are completely uncited is a bad sign. If a good article on this topic is possible, I very highly doubt this version of the article has much worth salvaging. Remagoxer (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This shouldn't be this hard. The article is mostly unsourced, the few sources that do exist are incidental mentions, there's a citation to someone's resume, precisely zero analysis or thematic coherence is presented, let alone cited, and it's full of unencyclopedic cruft like "it's just one block from Southern Cross railway station." Come on. As others have said, if anyone has reliable sources that talk about trams' relevance in mass culture, present them. I don't see a single one. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm far from convinced that Trams feature sufficiently in popular culture to justify this article or a substantial section in Tram, but I'm completely, utterly, gobsmacked how many people can keep a straight face and say that there isn't a single referenced source about trams in mass culture, in the face of A Streetcar Named Desire, the most famous play of probably the most famous US playwright, one of the most performed plays ever written, adapted for film, opera, ballet and TV, and written about extensively - and clearly using a tram motif at some level. I mean, yes, the tram's not super-critical to the plot, but if it were really so incidental, the makers of the 1951 film could have rebranded it as "A bus service named desire", but they didn't. I don't care whether this article is kept, deleted, merged or whatever but let's at least acknowledge that there is one notable instance of trams in popular culture with strong sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a big difference between a specific instance of a notable example, and the topic, as a whole, being notable. Per WP:LISTN, for a stand alone list, there must be sources that discuss the topic, in this case "trams in popular culture", as a group or set, and that is the argument that is being made here. I don't think that anyone has said that there is absolutely no notable example of a tram in a piece of popular culture, and a few comments have even mentioned that any truly notable example should be described on the main article. Its the lack of reliable sources that discuss "trams in popular culture" as a group or set that is missing here. Rorshacma (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole point, Rorshacma, this was never intended as a notable-topic article, it was only ever an overflow from Tram, in the same way that we move a singer's discography out when it gets too big. We do this even if no one has ever written about the singer's discography as a subject. But in this case it was a mess before it was moved out, and therefore remains a mess now. It should have remained in Tram as a "Trams in popular culture" section but been trimmed only to those instances that are genuinely writtten-about as trams in media that count as popular culture. And if that means only a streetcar named desire (which will be a very short mention as we have a full article for those who are interested) then so be it. Elemimele (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONTENTSPLIT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE some overflow is just useless or harmful for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTTVTROPES, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the proper action would have been to just remove the section entirely from the parent article. Even if there are truly notable examples, the sourcing and format of the "in popular culture" section of the article before the split was entirely improper and lists of trivia of this kind are discouraged by the WP:MOS. Trimming would not have solved the issue, the entire section needed to have been removed and, if properly sourced, rewritten from scratch. But, instead it was just moved so we wound up with a terribly sourced list of trivia on a subject that does not pass the notability guidelines for stand alone lists that we have to deal with now. Even the singular example of A Streetcar Named Desire listed here does not actually contain any kind of sourced information - it is literally just "this thing exists" mentioned three times. That kind of content would have been useless to keep in the article after a trim, and would be useless to try to merge back now. Any kind of genuine coverage on the topic in the main Tram article will need to be created from scratch, not taken from this. Rorshacma (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Tram. Some of this content might do for an "in popular culture" section. Also, agree with Rorschacma above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what content you want to merge. If we had any properly-sourced content to merge, we would have the beginnings of a proper article—but we don't. TompaDompa (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I haven't picked it out yet. I'd say there's a level of subjectivity here. While of course a film or movie or book reviewer commenting on the importance or symbolism of the tram in whichever work of art would be best, it's not impossible that the work itself could stand. For example, the streetcars in Who Framed Roger Rabbit are a plot point, part of the villain's motives, but the fact that they are streetcars and not something else isn't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hey, WFRR is even in there. Off the top of my head, the trolley in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood is one I'd pick. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  We can’t just randomly pick examples because we like them or think they’re noteworthy. That’s WP:OR. Dronebogus (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a useful page detailing a single source summary of trams/streetcars in the context of popular culture, being film, novel or other media. This provides useful reference for research for those interested in popular culture relating to the tram/streetcar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencward (talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi there, I understand you’re a new editor, but WP:USEFUL is one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Also, please sign your comments by typing four ~ after you’re done commenting. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list article, that doesn't pass NLIST. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A better article here would be based on tropes, rather than examples. Why are trams in popular culture? Are they personified and anthropomorphised as countless trains are? Are they the setting for where a commuting Cary Grant bumps into His Girl Friday? Or a setting for the Desire line or the Purple?

There was a time when we used to write stuff here. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:28B2:9A17:728F:BB96 (talk) [reply]

We can only include the kind of content you want if our sources do, otherwise we are engaging in WP:Original research. That's the reason we are here in the first place. The ideal outcome would be such sources being located so we could actually write that article. TompaDompa (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but that's the basis for SOFIXIT. This isn't helped by total deletion. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep OR or other low quality content hoping that one day someone might rewrite it. WP:TNT applies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when we didn't require references. Need I remind you what happened when that was the case? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A collection of random trivia about trams and tram tracks that happen to appear in various media. There is a one and half-sentence WP:LEDE before twe break into the list of crud. No links to e.g. academic articles which discuss what trams might symbolise in media or how they are systematically used by creative artists etc which would evidence that this was an encyclopedic subject that had been researched by reliable secondary sources. TV Tropes should be the place for this sort of user-generated content without secondary sources.--Dronkle (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear policy reasons for delete are given in the nomination, and keeps that assert too many policies are cited are not exactly rebutting the case! What is missing from the keep arguments is any suggestion that trams in popular culture are an encyclopaedic subject, treated as a whole. They are not. Yes it is spun out of the trams article, but spinning out a problematic section might improve the trams article but it leaves a page whose content is entirely at the whim of editors, who can add entries about cars stuck in tram tracks or places that happen to be called tramway, but no doubt omits huge swathes of other more likely mentions of trams all over the world. I can think of several missing off th etop of my head, but that is the problem. If I and other editors just add a bunch of stuff they think about, this is not an encyclopaedic subject. It is an indiscriminate synthesis of original research. To be clear, I oppose merge back into the trams article. The policy reasons for deletion are the same as the policy reasons for exclusion of the section from that article. This is not an encyclopaedic subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. This probably should have been kept before the relisting per it being a spinout from another page. Put it back where it was if deletion-minded editors have a problem now. And per my essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB, which discusses that if a solid keep argument is present and agreed on by several long-time editors, then that argument should automatically prevail. Many relistings, I haven't checked this one, are done at a rapid pace without the relister really giving the discussion the full reading needed to make a complete mental map of the various points. This can be checked by looking at the times on the edit history of the relisters/closers. Bottom line: There are many good faith editors who should not be doing closes or relistings, and if a discussion has a valid keep argument then it should be kept (there should be no such thing as borderline consensus, a tough call - if a discussion is a close call then the article should be kept). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have already made your !vote, but this comment simply re-asserts that we should ignore all the policy reasons why this kind of OR should not be on Wikipedia and keep it because a few long term editors say it would be nice to have. Your essay is not policy and in 404 AfDs you have participated, you have never once ever voted delete (nor even redirect) for anything. You are entitled to your opinion, and to state it, but any suggestion we should follow your rule of thumb is clearly at odds with long established policy and consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~My vote was before the relisting,~~ commenting after a relist is allowed mainly because the ultimate closer should grab a drink, sit in a nice chair, and read the entire discussion as a whole. But looking at times of closes and edits, many seldom do. And nice to have? Way to deflect and lessen editors' opinions. A redirect is a delete-in-disguise (you don't know that?). Read my stats again, I often vote delete (once) or redirect (five times! probably more than I should have). The rule of thumb should be tattooed on closers hands, so they know where to find it. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your single delete. But, no, there are no redirects. You have 5 merge votes and everything else is a keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks god I'm consistent. Have you considered that maybe when I agree with delete I just don't comment? And how often do you see a real "merge", they usually end up as redirects. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My vote was before the relisting, commenting after a relist is allowed. You did not comment initially before the relist, yours was the first comment after it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, yikes, you're right, sorry about that. I took out the boldface and added 'Additional comment'. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay has precisely zero bearing on this AfD, as it is written from a radical inclusionist perspective not consistent with policy or with accepted practice at AfD. It's just an excuse for you to say "I'm an experienced editor and I say keep, so the closer should supervote in my favor". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant mainly for other editors not the closer who may not even read it, but good point and hopefully all closers do read it. I like "radical inclusionist", will get new calling cards printed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I’m fully in agreement with Trains-etc. here. Your essay is a made-up “””rule””” that exists to encourage the idea that Wikipedia has a one-party class system where long-standing inclusionist (and only inclusionist) editors get 10 times the voting power. Dronebogus (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only 10 times? Then I was unclear. For the same reason as legal "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" applies in the judicial world, my point is that if there is a logical keep argument that is clear enough to be seriously considered as a major point-of-view in the discussion then the article automatically has enough merit to stay. This is not against policy, please read the policy WP:IAR which includes language which trumps guidelines and random complaints. Many editors think of IAR as utterly poisonous, like some random essay which on its face has no policy merit. But some editors believe that if a deletion discussion has a logical keep argument embedded within it, and going the other way actually harms the project by not maintaining the collection of topics related to that article, IAR should automatically take precedence. It is policy, not opinion, and for good reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t a court of law. This is a debate about the notability of a list of tram trivia. Your “essay” is simply “keep keep keep keep, always always always always” in fancier words. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Personally I don't !vote on the majority of RfD's and other fD's because I usually agree that the page should be deleted, or it already has enough support to do without mine. When I don't agree, such as attempts to remove adequate list articles or a need to demonize what some call trivia, which I've seen quite a bit of lately, I may comment. The essay is a shortcut to make the point I had to explain again above. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a “shortcut” to say “Keep because Randy said so” Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think personal essays are called personal essays? They are opinion. If others want to use that opinion in a comment somewhere then it's available. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list which does not meet WP:NLIST: Notability guidelines apply to the creation of stand-alone lists; notability also applies to spinouts: See Wikipedia:Splitting#Content split: Before proposing a split, consideration must be given ... to notability of the offshoot topic ... If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article. Per MOS:POPCULT, cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist, and these references are precisely included only because they exist. There is no depth. With this in mind, the page is not a valid WP:SPINOUT per what is discussed in Wikipedia:Article size#Breaking out trivial or controversial sections (this is a "trivial section" type of content) and Wikipedia:Article size#Breaking out an unwanted section (this would be a magnet for unhelpful contributions as a section and is a magnet for unhelpful contributions as an article).—Alalch E. 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I understand that some consider trams a rare thing, but they are really not to the point that no-one would think about creating Buses in popular culture or Airplanes in popular culture. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgeureka Side note: as someone who has been cleaning up 'in popular culture' categories for the last few years, I think you are wrong: folks have created the weirdest 'in popular culture' articles, from most obscure things to most mundane. And notability varies. Take a look at that category: Category:Topics in popular culture - sad thing is, 75% of the entries there are at the level of what we have here, and many AfDs (and rewrites) are needed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you taken into account that many Wikipedians have created, worked on, and enjoy reading In popular culture articles and categories? No need to "clean" them up other than your dislike of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laundry lists of references by nature violate WP:NOT. There is no context as to why "this thing was shown in 3 seconds of this movie" actually matters for readers to know. That's because that sort of thing can only really be explained in prose, relating some things to other things. TVTropes style lists are for that Wiki, rather than Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's... novel. I also enjoy working on fiction content, but I do it over at fandom (formerly, wikia). Becase of WP:NOT etc. I don't fully agree with our community decision to outlaw ficiton summaries and TVTropes like content, but I respect it. I do wish we had a better way to transwiki content as well as link to it, to be honest. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Example-farms fail NOT, and no one has provided evidence there are any sources that cover the topic as a whole in any detail. This is just a poorly-referenced hodgepodge of trivia and OR. JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Truman Daniel[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this page. His connection to Harry Truman goes beyond being his grandson.
- The subject is very notable by virtue of being the child of a child of a US President, particularly that one.
- He is the child of 2 very well known and influential individuals, either of whom would qualify him to have a Wikipedia page.
- He wrote two books, each is about Harry Truman and others connected to him.
- He has an oral account on the following site about his grandfather: https://themoth.org/stories/clifton-truman-daniel
- He has knowingly presented himself to the public.
- According to the wiki page on him "he is Director of Public Relations for Truman College, one of the seven City Colleges of Chicago."
- He has not attempted to remain out of public attention.
Who were the ones who initiated the deletion of this page? And specifically why? I speculate that those actions are enough to keep it.
Thank you. 100.36.90.181 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I was the one who nominated the page for deletion. I can confirm that I have no agenda here other than holding to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly around notability. To your points, please see notability is not inherited. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who are history and genealogy buffs, this is vital information. The Wiki bio rules need to be changed to allow whatever info is available on the descendants of Presidents of the U. S. 2600:8804:4000:6E00:FCC5:1CF0:6C98:258A (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is an author, former journalist, honorary chairman of the board of a major Harry Truman related institution, and has appeared on television as an advocate of his grandfather's memory. Aside from that, and because of the concerns of IP 100 above, please note that the nominator has been nominating many U.S. presidential relatives and not just this one, seems to be a concerning swath through a major portion of prominent U.S. historical families. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Randy Kryn: As with the other US presidential relative where you've voted keep, can you explain what parts of your rationale apply to WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO? This !vote is a assertion of notability(from Wikipedia's arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In spending about 30 minutes on this, and adding a number of new cites, its clear there's no question of notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in the article is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. There is no requirement that relatives of famous people be separately notable for there own accomplishments only that they have sufficient sources about themselves to write a proper article. That standard is met here. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent and Eluchil404. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2023 (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 realize that there might be objections to this closure but there is a clear consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Clinton Sr.[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article to be redirected to Bill Clinton as there's no indication it meets WP:ANYBIO or has notability independent of the former president. For example, all of the sources in the article right now are either presidential-focused or are Bill's autobiography. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator is right in that notability is not inherited, GNG says 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. The article cites numerous reliable secondary sources in its content. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Estar8806: The argument is that the secondary sources provided don't include significant coverage of the subject. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but WP:Notability (people) says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, which I believe is the case here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Presidential families tend to be exceptions to the rules of notability. i.e. grocer and gas station owner Francis A. Nixon, father of Richard Nixon. Gerald Ford's father Leslie Lynch King Sr., Ronald Reagan's traveling salesman father Jack Reagan, etc. etc. — Maile (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maile66, it's been awhile—I hope you're well. :-) I'd be remiss if I didn't point point out that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered an argument to avoid in deletion conversations. Perhaps those other articles should also be examined. Are there any significant secondary sources available that discuss Roger Clinton Sr. in depth and his own right? Wasn't Reagan's father also a politician? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17 It's not a matter of Other Stuff Exists, but more that Presidential families as a whole are handled differently. Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford for instance, has no accomplishments by Wikipedia standards. She was just Gerald Ford's mother. Got married a couple of times. Nancy Lincoln has no claim to accomplishment except to give birth to Abraham Lincoln. And so it goes. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it is as simple as you are making out to be, that presidential families tend to be exceptions to the rules of notability. For instance, Finnegan Biden just had her article deleted not too long ago. Even if that was the case, it would still go against the concept that notability is not inherited. Let'srun (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments, a major figure in the life of an American president. The nominator is making many of these type of good faith edits, and I just had to resurrect Ike's older brother after his page had been made into a redirect. The ed17, please do not plow through American president's families as you seem to be doing with deletions and tags, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: please feel free to visit my talk page if you have concerns about other edits I've made! Do you know of any significant secondary sources available that discuss Roger Clinton Sr. in depth and his own right? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've returned Warren G. Harding's daughters page that you've deleted without discussion, one which was kept in a 2017 AfD. Please stop doing these deletions to presidential relative articles, thanks. Your talk page not neccessary, just Afd pages you don't like or, better yet, rehab the articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clinton family. I don't think his relationship with a young Bill should exempt him from standard notability standards, but even if that would contribute to his inclusion here, I'd suggest this should be covered in the main article per WP:NOPAGE. The same goes for Jeff Dwire, if not more strongly. Reywas92^Talk 16:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It may be true that this article doesn't show the notability that we expect from other biographies. But I also don't see any support for deleting this article except from the nominator so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe notability is clearly established. As an aside, I am glad to see this article come up temporarily reinstated to allow for a proper discussion as to whether or not it is deleted. The very fact that the nominee, an administrator, Ed17 deleted it without even allowing a discussion was the very reason why I made the decision in June to retire from Wikipedia. So at least my faith has been restored by Estar8806 who called it out. I hope the article is kept but for me, I am out of here after 15+ years over because of this. Coldupnorth (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coldupnorth, jeez, you really did mean that you retired because of this The ed17 deletion [see CuN's user page). Hopefully you only take a break and come back as strong as ever. The nominator deleted a number of articles of notable presidential relatives which were rescued (thank heaven and Sanger for watchlists and contribution history pages). The admin should, of course, voluntarily refrain from taking it upon themselves to unilaterally remove any further articles (mainly because it has been shown in a number of recent RfD's that their judgement about these pages may be incorrect) but your presence on Wikipedia, and on this RfD, shows your value to the project. Stay warm, up north, Coldupnorth, and please come back now and then. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldupnorth: I'm sorry to hear that my actions affected you in that way. But as you have to know, you could have opened a discussion on my talk page, asked for a third opinion, or taken any number of other actions should you have so chosen... Wikipedia's fundamental ethos is in discussions between editors who disagree and come to a consensus decision.

@Randy Kryn: Give it a rest. I've nominated a few articles for deletion, and as it turns out consensus on them is at best divided (example 1, example 2). Moreover, you haven't helped these discussions with frequent posts that are rarely based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17, I didn't know about either of those nominations. What I was talking about was your removal of articles without discussion, just gone. There your recent record isn't so good. If I knew about Andrew Johnson's dad maybe I would have commented, I don't look at the list of deletion attempts, there are so many daily. It's a dark corner of Wikipedia, and often only ventured into when something pops up on my watchlist. Maybe just leave presidential relatives alone? By the way, Adali Stevenson wasn't a U.S. president, so his grandson wasn't in that realm and I know nothing about him. Met his dad though, the IIIrd, and knew several people who worked closely with him on a project. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People leave wikipedia for all sorts of reasons, I was reading the retirement comment on Coldupnorth's page and concluded "The ed17" must be 17 years old, and then remembered I've worked with/around Ed on stuff like 10 years ago, and slashed a decade off my own age due to this exciting discovery of reverse aging. No matter what we do with these presidential relations articles, please no one burst that bubble for me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Essentially I agree with the points Maile makes, its a very common carryover for an American president to generate enough coverage to support articles on key family members. Thus, we've had this article for 16 years.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:42, 15 August 2023 (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!} 03:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makosi Consulting[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would you want to delete this page instead of helping improve it??? Is this how we are going to grow pages and the movement??

Valid and reliable sources has been provided here, the company has wonawards in America and ranked highly.

This page must stay!! There are worse pages that this under you runny noses.. But You doing fokol. Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by MollelwaFahaSaBasotho (talk • contribs) 06:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing useful about the sources, see below. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Accountancy SA	?			? Unknown
The Silicon Review	?			? Unknown
businesswire	press release	?		✘ No
Crain's New York Business	Crain partnered with the accounting firm Anchin Block & Anchin to verify the financial documents submitted by companies.		~ It is one line of a table	~ Partial
Top Employers Institute	Top Employers Institute is a certifying body		Little information given	✘ No
Mail & Guardian	Author is the CEO of the Top Employers Institute	Opinion piece, by an expert. Reliable for statements of opinion	~ Three paragraphs	✘ No
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe, 1 May 2022 Newsletter			one line	✘ 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}}.

Source Evaluation Table. I have attempted a source evaluation table for the sources in the article, and another source I found (Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe, 1 May 2022 Newsletter). Does anyone have an opinion on how independent the in-depth articles in the trade journals Accountancy SA and The Silicon Review are likely to have been?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source analysis. I'd say the AccountingSA piece is an advertorial, and The Silicon Review is primarily an interview. Neither source contributes towards GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source table above, not much of anything else found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable per source analysis above + my own ref check. FYI, Silicon Review is pay-to-play and therefore not independent.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:31, 10 August 2023 (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 Survivor: Philippines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Stapley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notable for winning Survivor: Philippines. Her finishing sixth in Survivor: Winners at War may not be notable after all, despite using a Hidden Immunity Idol to nullify votes against her and to get Sandra Diaz-Twine eliminated. I'm unsure whether her onscreen relationships are worth writing about her.

Furthermore, her work as a "sex therapist" or psychologist or any other may not be notable after all. In other words, not notable as such, despite continuing media coverage (or some of that).

How about WP:PAGEDECIDE if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E applies? Also, should be redirected to Survivor: Philippines or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Psychology, and Iowa. George Ho (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot to say this: her notability outside Survivor not yet confirmed by reliable sources. George Ho (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Survivor: Philippines. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT and MERGE with Survivor: Philippines. The nominator already hit all of the major points: dubiously sufficient independent, significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources to justify an independent article under GNG, and what does exist suggests that a PAGEDECIDE analysis made in light of WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E should lean towards merging this back into the parent article about the show. Notably, this article was created with the edit summary "as per precedent with past winners of survivor", which is not the basis upon which he judge notability or the need for independent articles, needless to say. That was more than twelve years ago, and if the current state of the sourcing is as good as it could get in all that time, I think this is a straight forward call. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:32, 12 August 2023 (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!} 06:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callum O'Brien[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources supplied. A career high ranking of 61. No inherent notability in attending Commonwealth Games (like with the Olympic Games). LibStar (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Longhornsg (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2023 (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!} 04:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Pellett[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality and public transit announcer voice, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be reliably sourced as the subject of coverage and analysis about their work to independently validate its significance -- but this essentially just states that he's had jobs, and is referenced solely to his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-building source as it doesn't represent independent attention being paid to his work by people without a vested interest in it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of coverage in sources other than his own paycheque provider. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Just no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted an actual, you know, rationale, 'Stand clear of the doors please' is really, really not the stuff of WP:GNG. As a Bloomberg anchor, there is no presumed notability and none in RS presented (or evident with a BEFORE) regarding the subject. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Epicgenius, siro and Oaktree b are wise. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that (that it's not the stuff of GNG)? I remember a big fuss being made in the media a few years ago when the person who voiced the "mind the gap" message on the London Underground retired or died or something. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to New Technology Train. I conducted a BEFORE search and only found a few sources about him. They all seem to be related to his announcements for New York City Transit, which are already covered in the NTT article. Besides that, Pellett unfortunately has no standalone notability. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems ok to me Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to New Technology Train#Recorded announcements seems best for the encyclopedia. —siro χ o 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many reliable sources starting with this one. NYC Guru (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source actually talks primarily about a different announcer, Bernie Wagenblast. As far as I can see, the source only mentions Pellett once, so it isn't significant coverage of him. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not seeing any policy-based rationale for deletion here, and nom doesn't seem to have done even a perfunctory WP:BEFORE. We have at least the following: 106 words (excluding quote) in The New Yorker, approximately 300 words (excluding quotes from subject) in The New York Post ("no consensus" on RSP), over 1000 words with significant biographical content in Straus News, 107 words on Vox (not independent of New Yorker piece). I would also note substantial portions of this 4-minute news clip (I think this might have been what NYC Guru meant to link to above?) from NBC New York, which is probably not GNG material but certainly helps to show that the article subject is WP:WELLKNOWN for BLP purposes. I would assume there are more as that's just when I got tired of searching. This seems to meet the GNG threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, where "significant coverage" requires that no original research is needed to extract the content. And while these sources mostly aren't optimal for article-building, there are plenty of non-independent sources to fill in non-controversial biographical information. -- Visviva (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the NY Post, its RSP entry states that there is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics..., but it excepts sports reporting. My reading is that in this case, as it's neither politics or sports reporting, it is still generally unreliable. Hence, unless I am missing something, I'm not sure where you got that there's "no consensus" on RSP. (However, I have no strong opinion on the NY Press source and am not making a !vote now.) Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still caught between Redirect and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the sourcing is there to support this WP:BLP - the New Yorker coverage isn't really significant and the best feature story is a neighbourhood newspaper. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated my above !vote from just redirect to keep or redirect. I'm fine with either option. —siro χ o 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the reliable print sources that have been added in the past week (which are enough right there), there are also a number of media occurrences, including video clips from Conan O’Brien and The New Yorker.LingLass (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The justification to delete speaks about the article being sourced only to something written by his employer. But searches indicate there is news reporting about his voice work, which is described as one of the most famous voices in New York. Independent reporting about his work is what the nominator said was needed. I think arguably, he meets WP:CREATIVE criterion 4c, but less arguably the justification to delete is incorrect, a searches as per WP:BEFORE identify more sources than are discussed in the nomination.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-most-recognizable-voice-in-new-york
https://abc7ny.com/molly-clark-comedian-subway-tiktok/7220253/
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/sweet-spot-voice-of-the-subway/

CT55555(talk) 02:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject meets WP:Notability. Let's analyze these three sources and see if they meet the GNG. Here is a source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
New Yorker	Independent media.	New Yorker meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
ABC	Independent media.	ABC meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
CBS	Independent media.	CBS meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sure, we said "last relist" once already, but that was before new sources were unexpectedly presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think the CBS source has significant coverage as a passing mention, but I agree that the other two sources count toward GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Significant for sure. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2023 (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 Alejandro Brugués. I'm closing this as a Redirect, editors can take it from there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Inheritance (upcoming film)[edit]

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

"upcoming" since 2021, fails WP:NFF. Delete or move to DRAFT until an actual release.

PROD removed with comment "removing prod by User:Donaldd23; production and failure having attracted attention, take to Afd or draftify, maybe rename "unreleased"".

I'm not convinced that the coverage is significant enough to pass WP:NFF. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I'm not opposed to drafting the article. @Mushy Yank: I'm not sure how much "attracted attention" you're talking about? I mean a few websites reported that Netflix cancelled two completed films (this being one of them). No reason why and no plan to sell to other distributors were disclosed. If nothing comes out of it, we can always add a sentence about the unreleased film on the actor's pages.Mike Allen 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How much? Well, roughly 100 articles (in various languages) come out when you google '"The Inheritance" Brugués Netflix -wikipedia" (sites of various quality, obviously). Some sources on the page deal with the production, other sources with Netflix's decision. As to why Netflix decided to "drop" the film, this source in French said it was to sell it)). Many sources insist filming has been completed (there's another Inheritance film on Netflix, though, so it takes time to explore). Redirect could be OK but keeping the article because the film failed to be released so far and that it attracted "some" attention (notable failure being the/one reason to consider an unreleased film notable, as you know) would not shock me either. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we redirect, it would likely be better to create a page for the director and redirect there. Offhand it looks like he's probably notable. He directed [[Juan of the Dead] and Pooka Lives, for a start. I'll see what I can do on that end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, there's an article for him now at Alejandro Brugués. I forgot to include some info about the film in question, lol. So redirect for now. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fixed that as well. I just merged some of the info from this article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, but a bit of a complex one. Redirect to the newly created director page Alejandro Brugués, and then move without leaving a redirect to The Inheritance (unreleased film). The move should be done per WP:UFILM to prevent keeping a misleading redirect per WP:R#D2. If a release ever comes, it can be moved to the proper dab for its release year for restoration at that point. Redirect seems better than Drafting in this case (in my opinion) because if it never finds a release, it will end up G13 deleted. -2pou (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiara Loos[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Three of the sources on the article are primary, one is paywalled, and another is a comprehensive article about her; however, this is not enough for me to pass GNG. Looked at sources online and found nothing much. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [57] is definitely SIGCOV, [58] maybe. Searching for her current name "Chiara Bouziane" (Worldfootball.net profile) also finds [59] and [60]. Bouziane easily passes WP:GNG for me. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 10 August 2023 (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!} 01:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Co-operation in Science and Technology among Developing Societies[edit]

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

I cannot find enough in-depth, independent coverage about this organization to verify the information in this article. I only found some scattered references. The link to the website is dead. This, added to the already existent issues, prompts me request a deletion discussion. Either someone comes up with a couple of useful references to improve the article or else it should be deleted. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Technology. Skynxnex (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom. I also looked for reliable sources and only found a trickle of mentions. PepperBeast (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage I could find consisted of a series of directory listings that do not provide WP:SIGCOV. The only other thing out there is this document, which is a primary source as it was made by the India Science and Research Fellowship, the non-notable organisation that established the CCSTDS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not seeing WP:SIGCOV here. Seems to be a run of the mill non-notable research group in terms of sources. Even with my scientist hat on, I'm not seeing anything mentioned that would give me a caution flag indicating there may be sources showing something notable in terms of programs they do. KoA (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of magazines in the Netherlands. To the nominator, don't ask participants to do more work than you are willing to do. This nomination could have been closed for lack of a deletion rationale but editors moved ahead with evaluating the article despite the lack of one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZozoLala[edit]

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "ZozoLala" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Arts, Language, Comics and animation, Entertainment, Ethnic groups, Popular culture, Europe, Belgium, and Netherlands. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about ZozoLala, but how about if you do all of that first, per WP:BEFORE... - jc37 02:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
procedural keep, without prejudice. The rationale is copied from a template, I am also concerned about a lack of WP:BEFORE. Thanks to others for completing a BEFORE and providing a rationale other than a copied template. —siro χ o 03:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are definitely slim online. I had never heard of Zozolala in connection with the 2000s webcomic movement. However, I am seeing a bunch of mentions in Google Books. I expect there might be a significant chunk of legacy information on this subject, not online. Can't confirm yet either way. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article suggests notability is met. BEFORE is, realistically, recommended but not required. We can quibble on this but to keep this short, I just did my BEFORE and found nothing. (I'd certainly encourage the nom to do this in the future and report to us here, to avoid procedural complains). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator is correct that this does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The article has been completely unsourced since it was created in 2007. My searches have not found any usable sources. Elspea756 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively and without prejudice) to list of magazines in the Netherlands. Yet another case of excessive fragmentation. Can be thickened to "Zozolala (1982–2011), comics magazine[61]", delinking the title and organizing the ref details. There is more on Delpher and Google Books. gidonb (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a word on the notability question. The publisher is notable, however we do not have an article on that. The magazine is hard to say, as much of it was published during the lull years (between current newspaper website and national archive coverage). My solution works well regardless of the answer to this question. gidonb (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a small amount to list of magazines in the Netherlands as suggested by gidonb as WP:ATD-M. Especially as we have some level of secondary WP:V through Google Books. I concur with gidonb's phrasing "excessive fragmentation", merging is a good solution to such issues. —siro χ o 20:39, 13 August 2023 (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 actual analysis of the references indicates that there are not sufficient reliable and independent sources to sustain an article on this subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foued Kahlaoui[edit]

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

Despite some coverage at local newspaper JSL here and here, very little coverage, practically no professional appearances, and subject fails general notability guideline. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tunisia, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [62], [63] (""The eccentric left" has come to make a name for itself in the North. Because in the South, this 23-year-old young man, born in Corsica, trained in Bastia, is referenced. If he could not win in Ligue 2 with Bastia (a few games, 1 goal), he has bounced back in the last two seasons with Gazélec d'Ajaccio. Foued Kahlaoui thus scored 9 goals in 2007-2008 and above all 14, this season, in the CFA. This boy, whose surname also hints at Moroccan origins, is leaving Corsica for the first time"), [64], [65], [66], [67] ("He took charge of the E3 team, and since then has made them progress with great regularity. His team is playing this season in Juniors D3, with a very promising first round, finishing 3rd and having the best attack with 77 goals scored."), [68], among many more French sources. Clealyr significant figure in French and Swiss lower league football who has Ligue 2, one of best second tiers in the world, experience. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Once again interviews (tunisie-foot), articles from club websites (he played for and managed Signal) and routine coverage such as being fired are being passed off as sigcov. Clearly some scrub that somehow played in Ligue 2 before finding his natural level in the regional amateur divisions of France and Switzerland. Dougal18 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't merely "interviews" and "routine coverage such as being fired", I literally cited secondary coverage above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Dougal18 as there is no in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources (only one lejsl.fr article comes close). My favorite bit from the coverage linked above is this: Personne ne connaissait Foued Kahlaoui, pas même la plupart de ses futurs équipiers. Not exactly an endorsement of his notability ;) Jogurney (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with above that the first lejsl.fr article (what even is the second piece??) is the only source that approaches SIGCOV, and that is not enough to meet GNG, especially when so many of the sentences in the piece are redundant or unencyclopedic fluff. Maville is a transfer report. Tunisie-foot is a pure Q&A interview (why link it at all?). Proxifoot has a passing mention in routine transaction news. Signal is his club website. TDG has a single quote from him. These are not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no offense but I feel like I've seen this exact AFD discussion hundreds of times at this point, always divided around athletes and what coverage counts towards GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with the inadequacy of sources cited above. Looking through the coverage, it is nothing more than a series of interviews and routine announcements filled with puffery that do not equal a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found a couple more interviews and transfer coverage of him from national magazines, which is the extent I can do with basic internet searches. While my new sources don't meet GNG (at least this brief bit of news could be used to flesh out the article with prose) I think he's both notable enough as a footballer - dozens of professional games - and has generated enough requisite secondary coverage, including at least one WP:GNG-qualifying source, that someone could write a decent, notable stub about him. In terms of overall notability, though, he's right on the line. SportingFlyer T·C 20:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the GNG-qualifying source? I can't find one nor has anyone identified one. Jogurney (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one Paul Vaurie linked is fine by my assessment. The Maville article is transfer announcement but also covers him decently enough. I think we can keep on both of those alone, and then there are additional JSL mentions which we could write a start-class article on. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Paul Vaurie that the JSL source is not adequate to establish SIGCOV, but I thank you for putting forward a policy-based argument in favor of keep. Jogurney (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Tunisia, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the eight sources currently listed at the article, three might constitute significant coverage: The first Le JSL article, the Dunkerque source, and maybe the Signal FC source. The interview from Signal FC includes an extremely concise biography and is not independent, as it seems he was coaching there at the time, so it doesn't count towards the GNG. The remaining sources, in my view, do not constitute significant coverage, as they only briefly mention Kahlaoui. Same goes for the source brought in by SportingFlyer. Since it doesn't seem there is enough information to write a thorough article that goes beyond simply where he played (WP:NOTDATABASE), I think deletion is appropriate.

WP:SPORTBASIC says that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." This contradicts my above reasoning, but the thorough searching done in the course of this discussion has convinced me that there are in fact not "sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". Thus, I still think deletion is most appropriate. Toadspike (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree - there's easily enough here to write a start-class article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 18 August 2023 (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. Personally, I don't care for articles like this on person's whose notability is because they are wealthy. But three reliable sources should be sufficient to justify a person's notability. I think there is some promotional language in this article that could be toned down. For example, I don't think being a guest at the While House is a really strong indicator of notability. But that's my point of view and doesn't affect this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Kamath[edit]

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

The page is repeatedly created with proven blocked, COI history. The majority of the sources are coming from Newswire and are not independent. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see three reliables sources mainly Al Jazeera, Bloomberg and Forbes and do think the rest of the sources are not reliable enough to remain as an article. Untamed1910 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) The article was accepted by an AFC reviewer just a week back. How can an article which was reviewed at AFC needs to be deleted in just seven days? If there are any issues with the article then discuss on its talk page or fix it directly rather than nominating it multiple times for speedy deletion or AFD. 2) The subject is extensively covered by Indian National Media - Times of India, Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, Forbes and also by some International Media - Aljazeera, Bloomberg, Forbes and South China Morning Post. All of the aforementioned media are considered as reliable as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources . The article has more than 25 such sources which are considered as reliable at Wikipedia. Himalayan7914 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said only Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, Forbes, China Morning Post are listed as reliable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, do not appear on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list, there is no way of knowing if Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV are reliable enough. Untamed1910 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Untamed1910 , I think you haven't gone through the entire list properly. The Indian Express and The Hindu are also mentioned as most reliable (in the green legend) in the list. The article also has many more sources from the most reliable medias and today I have added a few more. I am listing down all the sources from the article by Most Reliable Media below for better understanding:

Al Jazeera - [69]

Bloomberg - [70] [71]

Barrons (Wall Street Journal) - [72]

Forbes - [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

Indian Express - [79] [80] [81]

South China Morning Post - [82] [83]

The New York Times - [84]

The Hindu - [85] [86] [87]

Yahoo Finance - [88]

There are many more such coverages from Indian National and Regional media from yellow legend section (no consensus on the reliability) too but they are considered as reputed here in India. However, I think the above coverages from the Most Reliable medias are more than sufficient to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Himalayan7914 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Majority of sources shared are nothing more than interviews where there is no independent comment of a journalist. Example: Aljazeera, Bloomberg, barrons, forbes, Forbes published by outsider, interview, ForbesIndia Interview again, Story of non notable company which is already been deleted multiple times , Interview PTI News, PR Material published on various news, PR Newswire, again interview Lordofhunter (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Defiantly passing WP:GNG, this, this, and this looks good to me. And all of them are reliable sources. Forbes listed him as the self-made billionaire. Forbes India listed him 30 under 30. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2023 (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!} 06:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerbleederz[edit]

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

Non-notable music act. No sourcing found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are four reputable sources already on the page, as many as a lot of other bands with pages on Wikipedia have that go undeleted. Seems unnecessary to nominate for deletion. Lewishhh (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources cited up to WP:RS standards? The coverage seems non-trivial but I'm not familiar with the editorial standards of any of those sites. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcebot says the Clash is fine, the rest likely aren't. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dork is a UK based music magazine. Louder Than War is a music and culture website. Gigwise is a music news site. All are reliable sources for music news run by journalists. Nothing cited is marketing, biased, self-published, or user-generated. Lewishhh (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The sources already in the article show that their album has been reviewed substantially by some reliable punk/alternative publications. However, I am a bit concerned about WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV because those album reviews are low on encyclopedic and biographical info on the band itself, as if the reviewers didn't have any interest in digging deeper. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Needs more citations, I don't think the current coverage is enough.Naomijeans (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Glad to see this band represented on Wikipedia, especially in light of efforts to address gender balance on WP (which WP:TOOSOON has been proven to create bias). I recalled that the band have played festival internationally and added those in. Some of these festivals and the band's record label are represented on WP so would expect this also helps demonstrate notability within these contexts. Rhagfyr (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Ideally, sources should appear on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two citations from Punknews.org as it's on the aforementioned list. When was the list's content last reviewed? The sites I've mentioned above could easily go on there. Lewishhh (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This page needs a massive overhaul, but the band does pass WP:SIGCOV.

BoxxyBoy (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the citations that were added recently... also discounting the "weak keep" !vote made by the blocked editor above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe the references such as Dork, Gigwise, Punknews, etc. are not the most reliable but still good enough in my opinion to support for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Telugu films of 2011. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaareva[edit]

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

Entire article lives off a single 123telugu review. Other source is a passing mention and an unreliable database source. No other reliable reviews or production sources found. Unreliable sources found in a WP:BEFORE: , [89]. Both TeluguOne and CineJosh are unreliable. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Cinejosh.com_and_Teluguone.com. DareshMohan (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given there's only one review suitable to attest notability, redirect to List of Telugu films of 2011.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Krull[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. IncompA 22:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTEMP sub-category of WP:N Graywalls (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2023 (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!} 00:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmina Slovenica[edit]

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

Choral group long unreferenced, with limited English-language interest -- the article is a mess after many years of being filled with puffery, and doesn't add much value to English Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Add the references that already appear in the Slovenian Wikipedia's article at https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Slovenica "With limited English-language interest" is never a valid reason for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain -- the sources on sl Wikipedia appear to be passing mentions or self-promotional -- they don't meet the criteria of significant coverage, beyond the normal treatment of a choir performing in a local context, Sadads (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Eastmain. Just needs writing and sourcing. Surprised to see this from somebody as resourceful as Sadads.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld The standard is higher for performance groups than "it has a few sources", per Wikipedia:BAND -- the current article doesn't make the case for notability, Sadads (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is there though, this New York Times article talks about its 2015 production "Toxic Psalms". An extensive article on the Slovenian culture website here. Cambridge Companion of Choral Music mentions it on page 207 but I can't access it. Plenty more hits in google books and I'm sure there'll be numerous reviews in other newspapers. It just needed cleanup of the cruft, writing and sourcing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slwiki also offers multiple sources that were published by mainstream reliable media A09 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Dr. Blofeld. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced now, and clearly notable. The potentisl should have shown up on the pre-nomination search. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only "limited English sources" is not a valid argument, it's also false that slwiki has promotional sources. 5/6 sources are from mainstream Slovene media companies. A09 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2023 (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 07:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Archer Connection[edit]

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

This BET project has been 'coming soon' since its PR pickup announcement, but there hasn't been a bit of news about it since 2018 (and it's never appeared on BET+), and I would hope it's not being currently produced for obvious reasons. Attempted to PROD, but a buzzer-beater drive-by editor removed the PROD minutes before the end of the PROD period with no notes about why they did so. Since I can't double-PROD, here we are at AfD. Nate • (chatter) 18:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage found online, and it doesn't look like it'll release any time soon. Fails WP:GNG. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found since 2018 sourcing used, appears to have vaporized into thin air... Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] How to use T-Shirt Sizing to Estimate Projects [2023 • Asana]

[2] Agile Estimation Techniques: A Deep Dive Into T-Shirt Sizing

[3] Project Estimation Through T-Shirt size - Medium

[4] Tailwind: Font Size

[5] Material Design: Break Points

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]